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

[Nadaka]

There is a ring of truth to what you say. Microsoft does hire a lot of people, and pays them pretty well. They have proven they can do at least second-third best compared to similar products in most fields, even if it takes them a while to get there. Yes, MS is in it for the money, and they do play dirty pool, but they are not exactly a raging demon out to consume your soul just for spite.

However, on the front of Open Source? FSF is a leader, Microsoft is not.

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

[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

[noidentity]

No matter how much people hate Microsoft, comments like this may me despise the free software movement. Somehow, i have this idea that MS providing 50,000 jobs

Agreed! OSS is pathetic in this regard, providing almost no jobs in malware authoring, virus removal program writing, independent PC technicians removing said malware, and books helping users understand the problem. The OSS people prefer to let some kernel code wipe out all those opportunities. They don't understand how valuable these jobs are in an economic situation like this.

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

[mspohr]

They decided to move to Linux in Oct 2009. The latest outage was in November 2009 on the old system. They haven't moved to the new Linux system yet (hint: it takes more than a month). So we can run this up the Slashdot flagpole and all have another round of bashing Microsoft of their lousy LSE software if you want.

Re:Lessig on what plex is really important

[ThePhilips]

People want a large resource pool, people want a stable business, support they can rely on and an infrastructure than can grow with their business.

You apparently never ran an IT department but read too much MSFT's PR.

Microsoft's support is well known to be one of the clumsiest (unless you are an extremely important customer to them).

Their licensing model also often limits the growth of the business.

Believe it or not, the world wants accountability and you don't get that with open source since the accountability falls squarely on your own resources in most cases.

That's silly. Accountability doesn't depend on software type. It does depend who's you have hired as a your integrator. There are plenty of integrators who would install and help you operate whatever software you wish to have - either closed source or open source.

Otherwise, good luck trying to keep MSFT accountable....

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.

Duh..

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a site for programmers, sure it isn't 0x100 days?

Re:Maybe they're waiting...

[cybrthng]

Its on the front page of: http://codeplex.org/index.aspx

Is it news or isn't it?

[erroneus]

I think for everyone on all sides of the matter of the public opinion of Microsoft, it is quite safe to say that Microsoft is not of one view or of one voice. Microsoft is a highly conflicted company that, perhaps, wants to serve its customers but continues to serve its own interests first.

Each and every time there is a story like this, on how Microsoft fails to live up to its hype and/or promises, it leaves me saddened that my opinion of the company continues to be unchanged.

Microsoft is a company that cannot "let go" of anything. Take .NET for example -- it is a miserable failure that they won't let die. They claimed they would use it exclusively going forward and have they? Nope. The only applications written in it are by 3rd parties and I can't say that they are all great programs to use. Even when threatened with tremendous sanctions and punishment, they can't let go of the ways that get them into trouble. (And now that the US government is under a less sympathetic party's control they should be especially careful! Their oversight period has expired and they have not changed. I expect 2010 to start off with announcement of yet another action by the DoJ against the unrepentant MSFT.)

Still. Is it news? Microsoft's promises are not to be believed under any circumstances. You just have to wait for their actual actions, inactions and reactions. Anything they say should be disregarded.

Re:Is it news or isn't it?

[recoiledsnake]

Microsoft is a company that cannot "let go" of anything. Take .NET for example -- it is a miserable failure that they won't let die.

A few web sites that use .NET technology:

Costco - http://www.costco.com/
Crate & Barrel - http://www.crateandbarrel.com/
Home Shopping Network - http://www.hsn.com/
Buy.com - http://www.buy.com/
Dell - http://www.dell.com/
Nasdaq - http://www.nasdaq.com/
Virgin - http://www.virgin.com/
7-Eleven - http://www.7-eleven.com/
Carnival Cruise Lines - http://www.carnival.com/
L'Oreal - http://www.loreal.com/
Remax - http://www.remax.com/
Monster Jobs - http://www.monster.com/
USA Today - http://www.usatoday.com/
ComputerJobs.com - http://computerjobs.com/
Match.com - http://www.match.com/
National Health Services (UK) - http://www.nhs.uk/
CarrerBuilder.com - http://www.careerbuilder.com/
Newegg http://newegg.com/
Geico http://geico.com/
Capital One http://capitalone.com/
Zecco http://zecco.com/

And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Maybe you should tell all those sites that .NET is a miserable failure? Or if you were just (successfully) karmawhoring, I am sorry to interrupt the circle jerk on here.

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.

It's Microsoft after all ..

[hebertrich]

i mean come on :)) you didnt take them seriously now did you ?

Happy new year :)
Ric

Re:Ah that list is getting old

[Richard_at_work]

You need to take your meds. Or seek professional help.

Be careful

[XB-70]

Microsoft recently opened networking engineers up to the samba people a while back. There was a good synergy between them and a lot of information flowed back and forth.

Fast forward to today: Windows 7 Home edition has had the ability to join domains REMOVED (this was available back with Win 95 through XP). A new networking capability, HomeGroup is available. HomeGroups can only have Windows 7 members. Windows XP, Macintoshes, even Windows Vista, need not apply. In short, rather than implement a cheap (free?) SMB server capability in every machine, yet another proprietary networking protocol has been developed to force users to upgrade (downgrade?).

A new variation on the NTFS file system has been developped too. This means more issues with interoperability between XP and Windows 7 - let alone Samba/Linux.

What I'm trying to say here is that Windows 7 has been very carefully engineered to NOT interoperate on both a filesystem and networking level with XP and cause problems with Samba shares - unles you buy the Win7 Pro version. My suspicion is that the reason for this stems from the intimate knowledge gleaned from the Samba team (NOTE: I have no way of proving this).

Don't cozy up to Microsoft. Stay away from any so-called open-source initiatives that they are putting forward. They are just a ploy to use the openeness against itself. This is a new MSFT's new method of attack on open source.