Does Microsoft Have the Best App Store For Open Source Developers?

WebMink writes "Microsoft seems to have been in combat against the GNU GPL throughout the history of free and open source software. But that may be changing. They have recently updated the terms of use for software developers in their Windows Phone app store to allow any OSI-approved open source license — even the GPL. They include extraordinarily broad language that gives the open source license priority over their own license terms, saying: 'If your Application or In-App Product includes FOSS, your license terms may conflict with the limitations set forth in Section 3 of the Standard Application License Terms, but only to the extent required by the FOSS that you use.' Could it be that the most open source friendly app stores will be the ones run my Microsoft?"

Comments

so they can steal your code

[Anonymous Coward]

They want all the FOSS stuff first to have the first crack at stealing your code. That's what they've always been good at

Re:so they can steal your code

[kthreadd]

They want all the FOSS stuff first to have the first crack at stealing your code. That's what they've always been good at

Stealing FOSS code? What does that even mean?

Re:so they can steal your code

[d33tah]

Improving the code in a proprietary product without releasing the patches to the public. That's stealing. And that's what Microsoft had already done at least once: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ms+gpl+violation

Re:so they can steal your code

[kthreadd]

I see what you mean but don't really buy it. Stealing implies that you don't keep your copy. You still do.

Re:so they can steal your code

[Barsteward]

"Stealing implies that you don't keep your copy. You still do." is that the same for downloading music?

Re:so they can steal your code

[d33tah]

Okay, at the second thought, it's a lame metaphor and I have to admit it. It's completely unethical though and it's obvious it's against the will of the original developer. Also, bear in mind that by using the Microsoft platform as your open source hacking platform, you give Microsoft some kind of control. And it's definitely not a corporation that could be trusted in free software distribution, knowing their history and share in a battle against the movement.

Re:so they can steal your code

[kthreadd]

"Stealing implies that you don't keep your copy. You still do." is that the same for downloading music?

The act of downloading music is not called stealing. If the download is done illegally then it may be called copying or sometimes more loosely piracy.

Re:so they can steal your code

[MysteriousPreacher]

Although d33tah may be correct (dependant on the licence behind the code being "stolen"), your reply is exactly why I don't describe copyright/licence infringement as "stealing". Quite a few people seem to forget that the word has for a very long time had multiple meanings. Would you steal yourself away to steal a kiss? Ever stolen a look at something in the hope of stealing an idea?

Re:so they can steal your code

[Anonymous Coward]

Language evolves. It is very common to incorrectly use "stealing" and "theft" to mean copyright infringement, particularly when it is the right to attribution that is infringed. Today, I'd argue that the terms "stealing" and "theft" have taken on some of the meaning of copyright infringement but still require clear context for this to be understood.

However, deetah used the shot sentence "That's stealing" as potent punctuation, seemingly attempting to clarify what is wrong with his first statement. Even today, this is deceptive, manipulative and flat out wrong.

Re:so they can steal your code

[BonThomme]

ok, how about felonious infringement. feel better?

Re:so they can steal your code

[Runaway1956]

Nope. A select few started using that word "steal, in relation to copyright infringement. A very select few. It's not a "language evolves" thing at all. It was a deliberate form of indoctrination. Non-savvy people read news articles about "stealing music", and they believed that nonsense.

The indoctrination continues. I refuse to be indoctrinated, thank you very much.

Re:so they can steal your code

[Runaway1956]

Again - nope. Copyright infringement has historically been a civil matter, argued in civil court. This "felony" nonsense must stop.

Re: so they can steal your code

[psYchotic87]

To be fair, the argument that is always made in discussions about this topic is that that is in fact not theft, but copyright infringement. Let us remain impartial here, and not use one or the other interpretation depending on what is most convenient.

Re:so they can steal your code

[Anonymous Coward]

RIAA/MPAA, is that you?

Re:so they can steal your code

[ljw1004]

Improving the code in a proprietary product without releasing the patches to the public. That's stealing. And that's what Microsoft had already done at least once: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ms+gpl+violation

??? those google results show that Microsoft *DID* release their derived work to the public under GPLv2.

Re:so they can steal your code

[Anonymous Coward]

"Stealing implies that you don't keep your copy. You still do." is that the same for downloading music?

The act of downloading music is not called stealing. If the download is done illegally then it may be called copying or sometimes more loosely piracy.

So the corporations who are taking shortcuts by copying and improving FOSS code without releasing the improvements back to the FOSS community are actually engaging in piracy? In that case it's interesting how piracy is just victimless copying when John Q. public does it but alluvasudden become 'stealing' when Company X is pirating FOSS code. After all John Q public would never have bought that CD, even if he hadn't been able to torrent it. But then would penniless startup X have bothered to produce product Y if they had not been able to take massive shortcuts by pirating and improving FOSS code? Illegal downloads result in some lost revenue for the artist, and one could say that re-release of FOSS code improved by some company constitutes recompense for the FOSS community so in a way the FOSS community, after doing a whole pile of volunteer work, is being cheated out of its 'compensation', (i.e. the improvements Company X is not releasing).

Sincerely,
Advocatus Diaboli

Re:so they can steal your code

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Stealing FOSS code? What does that even mean?"

It means grabbing it, possibly but not necessarily changing it, and then releasing only the binaries regardless if one charges for those binaries or not.

Re:so they can steal your code

[Anonymous Coward]

This post got modded "Troll". Message understood: Double standards are A-OK in Slashdot's book if it means they can rationalize downloading music and movies for free from sources that would rather they didn't, but by whatever god you believe in, hell WILL be raised if you try the same thing on OUR software. Anybody pointing out this BLATANT AND EXTREMELY REAL CONFLICT OF LOGIC is a troll. Good, glad I understand why our culture will always be relegated to the status of "fringe crackpots, easily ignored".

Re:so they can steal your code

[stenvar]

The code was "written" by a contractor, and MIcrosoft immediately took action. I think turning that into "Microsoft has already stolen code" is unfair. Much as I dislike Microsoft and their business practices, I'm pretty sure they don't make a habit of "stealing" GPL code themselves. It would make very little sense for them to do so.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-admits-its-gpl-violation-will-reissue-windows-7-tool-under-open-source-license/4547

Re:so they can steal your code

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking FOSS code and copying it in proprietary software without informing anyone. I am sure it is being done all the time.

Re:so they can steal your code

[kelemvor4]

"Stealing implies that you don't keep your copy. You still do." is that the same for downloading music?

The act of downloading music is not called stealing. If the download is done illegally then it may be called copying or sometimes more loosely piracy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-wwqW37-gg

Re:so they can steal your code

[davydagger]

agreed.

So why did swat teams descend on Kim Dotcom's house, and why did the federal government take down the site with all our phone modding ROMs

Re:so they can steal your code

[kthreadd]

So the corporations who are taking shortcuts by copying and improving FOSS code without releasing the improvements back to the FOSS community are actually engaging in piracy?

It depends on the license under which the FOSS is released. If that's not acceptable under the license then it could be possible to call it a form of piracy.

In that case it's interesting how piracy is just victimless copying when John Q. public does it but alluvasudden become 'stealing' when Company X is pirating FOSS code. After all John Q public would never have bought that CD, even if he hadn't been able to torrent it. But then would penniless startup X have bothered to produce product Y if they had not been able to take massive shortcuts by pirating and improving FOSS code? Illegal downloads result in some lost revenue for the artist, and one could say that re-release of FOSS code improved by some company constitutes recompense for the FOSS community so in a way the FOSS community, after doing a whole pile of volunteer work, is being cheated out of its 'compensation', (i.e. the improvements Company X is not releasing).

Sincerely, Advocatus Diaboli

I don't understand what it is that you're saying. It doesn't matter if it's software or music, the license should be respected.

Re:so they can steal your code

[Anonymous Coward]

Theft of free (libre) software is the same as theft of commercial software-- distributing, incorporating, etc. the code in violation of the license is a violation of copyright regardless of free license or commercial license.

The examples provided, in the other comments, of Microsoft's thefts are poor. Here are a few examples of theft, by Microsoft, of commercial code and code that was released to the community.

Links are just from quick google searches of examples I remember from over the years:

Microsoft Flight Simulator is stolen code:
http://www.radiolists.net/pipermail/af/2007-September/004813.html

Microsoft DOS is stolen (and to anybody [including me] who did low-level stuff in CP/M it is obvious; there was a "forensic" report that made the rounds by someone on the payroll of Microsoft [without indicating that he was on the payroll of Microsoft] that disputes this)
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/07/31/court-ruling-supports-claims-that-microsofts-first-os-was-stolen/

Microsoft Doublespace is stolen from Stac-- and after the court agreed and made Microsoft pay up, MS sued Stac for reverse engineering their OS since they proved to the court that it was impossible to write applications as functional as MS products for DOS without reverse engineering since MS didn't provide documentation. When MS didn't destroy Stac with their counter-suit (which I hope was looked at during the anti-trust investigations), they bought stac, and fired everybody (including some of my friends).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics

MS embrace, extend, extinguish is also a form of theft. MS DNS, MS Kerberos, MS LDAP, MS implementation of opendoc, all are broken in ways that break interoperability (some, like DNS, inter-operate today because others broke their implementations so they would work with MS broken versions).

MS, Apple, even Redhat as commercial entities cannot be trusted to not try to damage the free software community for their own gain. It does not mean that it is impossible to work with these commercial entities, but vigilance is required.

Re:so they can steal your code

[robsku]

Yes - *after* they were caught for GPL violation, which they have admitted since that. The code release was result of GPL violation, not their original plan. If you had the same results I saw then I can't see how you could misunderstand that.

Re:so they can steal your code

[Runaway1956]

Because the corporate world is enamored with Gestapo films and tactics? And, the government lackeys enjoy playing the game as well?

Re:so they can steal your code

[d33tah]

Shouldn't have used Bing :D

Re:so they can steal your code

[DarwinSurvivor]

If microsoft needs someone to add their FOSS application to an app store for them to be able to steal the code, we really have nothing to fear from them.

Re:so they can steal your code

[Immerman]

Possible nothing, that's a clear-cut case of the traditional meaning of copyright piracy - when California publishers would copy east-coast commercial works wholesale without permission.

Re:so they can steal your code

[spitzak]

Yes you cannot steal information. However you can steal credit. It is called plagiarism. Yes, if I rip a copy of Metallica's album that is not stealing. If I somehow convince people that the result is my own band's work and not Metallica's, then that *is* stealing!

In any case the original post is silly. If Microsoft wanted to violate copyright on some GNU code, it does not matter whether they have done something to the app store to allow it to be put in there. In fact if anything this is the opposite, since before it would have been impossible to put software using GNU components into the app store without violating the copyright.

Re:so they can steal your code

[spitzak]

Anybody unable to tell the difference between making a copy of a Metallica album, and claiming you wrote and performed that copy, is a troll.

Re:so they can steal your code

[Subjective]

To steal yourself away is to deny yourself from the current location
When you steal a kiss, you deny someone else that kiss
When you steal a look, you're looking at something before others do.
When you steal an idea, you gain its advantages before the original creator

There never were other meanings to 'steal'

A woman has stolen my heart. Now my heart is not mine to command any more

Re:so they can steal your code

[Tough Love]

The generally accepted term is "pirating".

Re:so they can steal your code

[chrismcb]

Right because they can't download the source code from github or codeplex or elsewhere? You know, the place where the source is hosted, BEFORE the binaries are released.

Re:so they can steal your code

[Penguinisto]

"Stealing implies that you don't keep your copy. You still do." is that the same for downloading music?

No, but a better music analogy is at hand: some no-name band writes and sings an excellent but little-known song, then Justin Bieber hears it, and shortly after sings/releases the same song (with a few small changes) as if he wrote it.

Re:so they can steal your code

[shutdown -p now]

GPL violation was perpetrated by a Chinese subcontractor, though, not an MS employee, and it certainly wasn't requested. As a developer in MS, I can tell you that, if anything, the company is excessively paranoid about any open source code (and particularly GPL) finding its way into any released products. I imagine quite a few heads have rolled in the managerial chain after that snafu.

Re:so they can steal your code

[MysteriousPreacher]

You're still stuck on a singular definition of stealing that quite obviously isn't exclusive. Consider your examples:

When you steal a kiss, you deny someone else that kiss

Stealing a kiss is about surprising someone with a kiss. Your definition is a bit odd, and more than a little creepy. It creates an odd situation where usage of anything that can only be used by a single person at any given time would be redefined as stealing. I'm stealing a chair at the bar because no-one else can use it while I'm seated there?

When you steal a look, you're looking at something before others do.

Again you have an oddly specific understanding of this expression that seems contingent on denying something to others, or at least beating them to it. What if I'm the last man on Earth - is it possible to steal a look at something when there's no-one else around? If someone else has already stolen a look, can I no-longer steal a look?

When you steal an idea, you gain its advantages before the original creator

So an idea can't be stolen if the creator has already enjoyed its advantages? That's patently nonsensical. While it's true that stealing the idea could devalue the idea, stealing the idea requires neither timing (slipping in before the creator can enjoy the idea) nor advantage over the creator.

A woman has stolen my heart. Now my heart is not mine to command any more

Agreed.

Re:so they can steal your code

[robsku]

Thank you for these details.

Re:so they can steal your code

[Jerry Smith]

Although d33tah may be correct (dependant on the licence behind the code being "stolen"), your reply is exactly why I don't describe copyright/licence infringement as "stealing". Quite a few people seem to forget that the word has for a very long time had multiple meanings. Would you steal yourself away to steal a kiss? Ever stolen a look at something in the hope of stealing an idea?

You can steal a prognosed/expected profit from an idea. Like: I have an idea with monetary value (cure for cancer, cold fusion, desktop quantum computing) but the value is dependent on being the first to bring it to the market. Someone 'taking' that idea and marketing/patenting it, would cost me.

Re:so they can steal your code

[chris.evans]

They take with out contributing back to the foss project that is bad because the project doesn't grow and develop then

Re:so they can steal your code

[MysteriousPreacher]

Ello sir. Yeah, it can definitely work that way. Being first to market isn't everything though. I'd imagine that cancer cure cost a fair bit of money to develop. Even if you're first to market, I can sweep in after you and sell far more cheaply (assuming the actual manufacturing costs to be way lower than the development process). My main point is that it is stealing, and that the term is imprecise.

Re:so they can steal your code

[strikethree]

The code was "written" by a contractor, and MIcrosoft immediately took action. I think turning that into "Microsoft has already stolen code" is unfair.

I agree. The hyperbole, truth stretching, and outright lying needs to stop. This was NOT a situation to nail Microsoft to the wall even if they deserve it in general.

Re:so they can steal your code

[Yebyen]

It is a "language evolves" thing, absolutely. In language evolution, there are two types of change, there is "change from above" and "change from below."

When new vocabulary is introduced as a deliberate or coordinated effort, by a small (oligarch) group of people, that is change from above. It's part of language evolution. Not the darwinian sense of evolution, but darwinian evolution is for biological systems; we call language change "evolution" because it sometimes mimics that process.

When lots of people move from one place to another and they bring their speech patterns with them, and the patterns considered as 'normal' speech in the region becomes more similar to their speech and less similar to the old way of speaking, or when the migrants adapt their speech to pre-existing language in the region where they moved to, that is change from below. It's also change from below if pronunciation shifts, as in the great vowel shift.

Just don't make the mistake of thinking that evolution in language doesn't happen like Orwellian "New-Speak" scenario. That is in the linguistic sense absolutely evolution too. Copyright owners probably don't want your euphemistic extra syllables in "copyright infringement" and would rather refer to it as simply stealing. By making up this newspeak and pedantically insisting that it be used in place of easier to grok 'stealing', which gets across clearly what kind of damage is done, you are the one who is attempting the change from above. It's not the music that's been stolen, it's their right to profit from reproduction and distribution, and that's a thing, tangible or no, it's codified in the law. It's still stealing.

Re:so they can steal your code

[Maxx169]

Nope. Is certainly language evolution. Doubleplusgood language evolution.

Admiral Akbar.

[Anonymous Coward]

nothing more need be said...

Simple Answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Re:Simple Answer:

[davester666]

It isn't that there is some explicit rule saying "no open source software" for any of the platforms.

It's the conflict between 'no-sideloading' and terms in the gpl/lgpl, which give the user the right to get the source code, and compile and run the resulting binary.

I believe the argument is that since you have to pay for a developer license in order to get the resulting binary to run on your phone, this violates that term of the gpl license. And signed binaries which have to include the libraries bundled as part of the app mean end-users can't replace the lgpl library, which would violate the license.

Re:Simple Answer:

[davester666]

Just to follow up, so unless MS enables users to side-load apps for free and modify apps sold through their app store, I don't see how just saying "your terms override our terms" resolves the situation.

Re:Simple Answer:

[Anonymous Coward]

That is too simple answer.

Re:Simple Answer:

[shutdown -p now]

I don't know about the phone, but on Win8 the developer license itself is free - you only need to pay for the Store license.

And I don't think a technical limitation on sideloading would count, in any case. GPL is all about legality - if there is anything in the license that outright prohibits side loading without a dev license, that's one thing, but if it's silent on that, then there is no conflict with GPLv2 here (v3 is a different matter due to the explicit anti-tivoization clause).

Re:Simple Answer:

[davester666]

My understanding is that the problem is with the "you only have to pay for the Store license" [at least, for Apple's App Store]. You can get the source code, and compile it, but you can't run it on the device without having to pay for the privilege. Some people seem to feel that violates the GPL [one of the VLC guys for example].

Re:Simple Answer:

[shutdown -p now]

You don't have to pay for Store license to side load apps. You only need the developer license for that, and it is free.

Re:Simple Answer:

[shutdown -p now]

Also, the situation you describe - having the complete source, but being unable to run it on a particular device because it employs signing or other DRM trick - is not compatible with GPLv3, but works with GPLv2 (indeed, it was the main reason for v3).

Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally would never code open source software for Microsoft APP store to benefit... #deathtowidowsphone #longliveandroid

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a widow, you insensitive clod!

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Anonymous Coward]

Hash tags here? Really?

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[kthreadd]

I personally would never code open source software for Microsoft APP store to benefit... #deathtowidowsphone #longliveandroid

Microsoft has published some of its software as open source, including their F# compiler and several .NET libraries like Entity Framework and ASP.NET MVC. They have also contributed to the Linux kernel.

Microsft and Open Soure clearly mix; what could be said is that Microsoft is not (yet) open source first.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Anonymous Coward]

They have also contributed to the Linux kernel.

That's a bit deceptive. Microsoft contributed code needed for its VMs to host Linux, nothing more.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[kthreadd]

That's a bit deceptive. Microsoft contributed code needed for its VMs to host Linux, nothing more.

I don't see what's deceptive about it. You either contribute or you don't; they did.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop dreaming about NT 4 and Win95. That stuff is long gone. Microsoft of today is much cooler. =)

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot was long ago taken over by the twitterites and reddit crowd. It's sad but true.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Dave Emami]

They have also contributed to the Linux kernel.

That's a bit deceptive. Microsoft contributed code needed for its VMs to host Linux, nothing more.

If they contributed, they contributed. Does it matter that they did so because there is a demand for their VMs to run Linux, rather than out of the goodness of their hearts? One of the benefits of having something be open source is that numerous different parties can fix bugs or add functionality that may (per consensus) improve the project, but which only one party has the time, knowledge, and motivation for. For folks other than the project's core developers, that motivation will often be "I need it to do X" not "I want to help everyone who uses this and promote open source software."

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[BonThomme]

#octothorpe

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[worldthinker]

Sorry, but you deal with Microsoft at your peril. It is in their DNA to "steal", misappropriate,, strong arm, and every other dirty trick to disadvantage technical partners and they do it to this day. Ask Nokia how they feel about their business prospects. Or the legions of companies that have experienced the same rapacious partnerships.

Ask HP how they feel about MS potentially buying Dell?

Oh, and lest we forget, the legal suits against Linux are still winding their way through the courts and it was MS chief in the background backing those suits.

I am in agreement with Admiral Akbar.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[hduff]

That's a bit deceptive. Microsoft contributed code needed for its VMs to host Linux, nothing more.

I don't see what's deceptive about it. You either contribute or you don't; they did.

They contributed code that only benefitted their product. The benefit is only generalized to the community if it encourages wider adoption and awareness of FOSS through exposure via their product, which it may.

If you don't like their product(s), don't purchase or use them. I don't.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Runaway1956]

It's way cooler among those who grew up indoctrinated in the Microsoft ecology, I guess. It's remotely possible that I'll forgive Microsoft, some day. I'll never forget.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Gadget_Guy]

Failure: there is always why the contribution was made to consider.

Microsoft has way too much past history to redeem. The fact that many younger people aren't aware of said nasty history is sad.

That is true. It is terrible that there is a generation of people who judge the company by their actions of today, and not by what the company did before they were born. Oh wait, no it isn't terrible.

Sorry, but that sounds like someone who would refuse to drive a BMW because they hate the Bosch. There comes a time when you start looking like some old fogie from an old peoples home ranting and raving about long dead issues that nobody cares about.

But to avoid problems with companies contributing to Linux in the future, perhaps the open source community needs to publish the list of approved reasons for doing so. In this case, Microsoft submitted changes to the Linux kernel to make it work better with their OS. Is that really so bad? If Nvidia or AMD did this to support their video cards, we would all be cheering about what a great thing this was. So why is it different for Microsoft?

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[kthreadd]

They contributed code that only benefitted their product.

Nothing wrong with that.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. I don't buy from IBM because they worked with the Nazis

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Anonymous Coward]

If Nvidia or AMD did this to support their video cards, we would all be cheering about what a great thing this was. So why is it different for Microsoft?

There would be no need to cheer. Nvidia's hardware and software is non-free, and using non-free hardware and/or software is unethical.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Anonymous Coward]

They contributed code that only benefitted their product.

The majority of contributions from most corporations are only done to benefit their products, the fact many also benefit the community is usually just incidental.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Bert64]

They did so because their VM environment is playing catch up, and if it didn't support linux that would be even less reason for anyone to consider using it.

If their VM platform were the market leader, it's almost certain that they would intentionally not support linux and even go out of their way to break it in an attempt to coerce people away from linux.

They only ever do anything that aid interoperability when their own product is coming from behind. If they have cornered a market already, they do the exact opposite as has been shown time and time again.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Nerdfest]

If you don't punish companies for their pas behaviour, and they can make a quick present day profit, why would they refrain from bad behaviour? They absolutely should be punished for past evil. If more people had longer memories, they'd need to behave better. This applies to politicions and many other things as well.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[whoever57]

If they contributed, they contributed. Does it matter that they did so because there is a demand for their VMs to run Linux, rather than out of the goodness of their hearts?

Actually, the why may not matter, but the fact is that the code they contributed did not really improve Linux, it just allowed Linux to run under Microsoft's closed-source Hyper-V. The code was aimed at improving Microsoft's own platform, not Linux.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[gtall]

It is different for Microsoft because they've shown they cannot be trusted. Just because you cannot see a downside doesn't mean MS hasn't thought it through and found a new way to screw FOSS.

As to their current behavior, what is it about them shaking down companies for patents on alleged MS IP in Linux that you don't understand. If they were honest, they'd wouldn't be refusing to show what the IP is so that the Linux devs could route around it. It is shameful and we can only assume the worse given their past behavior. Screw'em.

Always tell the truth, and as an added bonus, Microsoft hates it.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[ilguido]

I don't see what's deceptive about it. You either contribute or you don't; they did.

They also contributed a lot of open standards and that's one of the most evil thing they did (and still do).

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Anonymous Coward]

And did it badly.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Zero__Kelvin]

Technically you can't call yourself that until after your gender re-assignment operation is complete, and even then it is arguable.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[stenvar]

If they contributed, they contributed. Does it matter that they did so because there is a demand for their VMs to run Linux, rather than out of the goodness of their hearts?

Yes, motivation matters a great deal. You can contribute out of altruism, or because you think everybody wins (including yourself) when you contribute, or to advance only the interests of your own, proprietary products. Microsoft has mostly done the latter. (For that matter, so has Apple, since their open-source release have also largely been useless to non-Apple users.)

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[PCM2]

That is true. It is terrible that there is a generation of people who judge the company by their actions of today, and not by what the company did before they were born. Oh wait, no it isn't terrible.

Word. My parents never kept any slaves, either. Slavery is a myth.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Gadget_Guy]

You want to deal with their crap, have fun. But don't paint it pink and put bows on it.

Fair enough, but similarly don't paint it brown and flush it down the toilet. Unjust or over-enthusiastic praise for something that Microsoft does would be wrong. Just as wrong as belittling every good thing that they do because decades ago they wouldn't allow a beta version of Windows 3.1 to run on DR-DOS (to use one of the complaints people have).

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[PCM2]

If they contributed, they contributed. Does it matter that they did so because there is a demand for their VMs to run Linux, rather than out of the goodness of their hearts?

If they contributed solely out of their own business interests, and their contributions add nothing of value other than compatibility with Microsoft's proprietary software, and nobody who doesn't want to use Microsoft's proprietary software will see any benefit whatsoever from any of the changes Microsoft contributed to the kernel, then yeah, I would say it's fair to rate Microsoft's contributions to the Linux kernel lower than those of a company like, say, Red Hat.

Those stories a couple years ago about how "Microsoft is now one of the top kernel contributors"? Look at it this way: That's how much Microsoft had to change the kernel to make it work with Microsoft's proprietary VM tech.

Fair enough. Microsoft's contributions are as welcome as anybody's, provided it plays by the rules. But are you saying we're supposed to congratulate them for it? Hardly, I say.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever you do, don't mention the war!

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Gadget_Guy]

If you don't punish companies for their pas behaviour, and they can make a quick present day profit, why would they refrain from bad behaviour?

I think that the huge fines that they have received for some of their past behaviour would be reason enough to prevent them from doing it again. And if you keep punishing them no matter whether they are being good or evil now, then what is the incentive for them to be good?

Another alternative is to punish them when they do something wrong. And don't punish them for doing things that everyone else does. For example, who doesn't bundle a browser with their OS these days?

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[DannyVegas]

Nokia turned a profit this past quarter for the first time in a long time. I would say that their shareholders feel pretty good about that.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Gadget_Guy]

Just because you cannot see a downside doesn't mean MS hasn't thought it through and found a new way to screw FOSS.

It also doesn't mean that they have found a way to screw FOSS. People keep quoting Embrace, Extend, Extinguish when they create ties with the FOSS community, but nobody has ever been able to tell me how the Extingish part is supposed to work.

As to their current behavior, what is it about them shaking down companies for patents on alleged MS IP in Linux that you don't understand.

But like it or not, that is not bad behaviour. That is the patent system doing what it is designed to do. It is no different than people clamping down on GPL violations.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Gadget_Guy]

Word. My parents never kept any slaves, either. Slavery is a myth.

I'm not saying that you should deny that Microsoft have done bad things in the past. I am saying judge them for what they have do now and have done for the past decade. They really did pull their collective socks up.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[kthreadd]

If you by useless mean allowed Google to base the Chrome browser on Apple's WebKit then sure, very useless. Projects like FreeBSD must have found Apple's involvement in LLVM very useless, and I'm sure they found libdispatch useless as well.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[kthreadd]

If they contributed solely out of their own business interests, and their contributions add nothing of value other than compatibility with Microsoft's proprietary software, and nobody who doesn't want to use Microsoft's proprietary software will see any benefit whatsoever from any of the changes Microsoft contributed to the kernel, then yeah, I would say it's fair to rate Microsoft's contributions to the Linux kernel lower than those of a company like, say, Red Hat.

Speaking of Red Hat it looks like the guest support for Hyper-V is a fairly big feature in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.9. I'm just speculating here, but it is likely that Microsoft's contribution adds business value to companies like Red Hat and eventually to their customers. So I don't get what is so bad with Microsoft contributing to open source.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[robsku]

There are more recent things, like buying themselves "open" document "standard" or the restricted boot hardware lock-in scam plan - and while I know that some people disagree about these issues they still are issues to others and proof that MS is still treacherous as it was in the DR-DOS times.

As far as I consider the old stuff can be summed up with recent stuff for total sum of unworthiness as long as there is new stuff to point out that they haven't turned the boat around.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[DarwinSurvivor]

And how much of that "profit" was provided by microsoft versus actual sales?

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[DarwinSurvivor]

No, there is nothing wrong with that. There is something wrong with using it as an argument that they are helping FOSS in any way.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[NotBorg]

They only "contribute" code that requires a Microsoft license to use. Can you use their code without running their VM on their OS? No. Microsoft only releases stuff that require Microsoft products to work (save a few exceptions where it was the company that they acquired that was doing it).

Do I have to run Android to use Google's contributions to the Linux kernel? No. For that reason, I consider Google's contributions a lot more friendly to open source than Microsoft's because they're generally more useful and not limited in usefulness as an express design goal.

I suspect Google, despite having a competing product, has more commits to Firefox than Microsoft does. It's not that Google is a perfect saint, they're not, it's that it illustrates how MS's views on open source differ greatly from everyone else's. Yes, I know that all apparent altruism is a sham and Google is looking out for #1. But there are more positive (and tangible) side effects from Google's apparent altruism than there are from Microsoft's. And since I'm looking out for #1 too, I'm going to pick the products and services that fit my needs best as a developer. That generally means products and services that work well with other products that may or may not be from the same vendor.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[robsku]

As to their current behavior, what is it about them shaking down companies for patents on alleged MS IP in Linux that you don't understand. If they were honest, they'd wouldn't be refusing to show what the IP is so that the Linux devs could route around it. It is shameful and we can only assume the worse given their past behavior. Screw'em.

This in fact is one thing I have big issue with - it's clear for anyone with sense of ethics that under patent law (which I personally don't accept for software anyway) an extortion scheme where you threat with lawsuit but refuse to provide information of what patents (also equivalents of other IP laws that patents) are being violated should in fact render those patents unusable in future lawsuits against alleged infringes.
Of course this would mean that if new infringement was found and a case was brought against that, it would also be rendered useless automatically as there is no way to know if it was/n't one of those in earlier threats - but that's ok, nobody would make these empty or secret threats with such laws.

In this case MS could not sue any Linux business for patent violations before they had released the list of allegedly violated patents they have made threats of - and given appropriate time to take action and fix these issues. IANAL, and not trying to make up exact legal writing of how such law should be worded exactly, just explaining general idea - and really as far as software patents go I hold the opinion that the faster we get rid of those the better.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[stenvar]

If you by useless mean allowed Google to base the Chrome browser on Apple's WebKit

WebKit is based on KHTML, and Apple didn't have a choice about the license since it's LGPL. Apple's conduct vis-a-vis the KHTML developers was unfriendly to say the least.

Projects like FreeBSD must have found Apple's involvement in LLVM very useless,

Apple didn't choose to open source those projects, they merely participated in an existing project.

and I'm sure they found libdispatch useless as well.

libdispatch isn't really used much outside OS X, since other platforms have better alternatives. libdispatch is indeed typical for the kinds of projects that Apple chooses to open source.

I know of no software open sourced by Apple either out of altruistic reasons or that constitutes a win-win situation. And unlike Microsoft, Jobs explicitly and clearly tried to screw the gcc developers and circumvent the GPL.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[robsku]

Mostly agree, though I consider it a benefit to Linux if it simply makes it technically better*, even if it comes with price of possible decreasing number of linux installations (such as Linux host running more Windows VM's than Linux VM's) even though for the community and growth of linux it may actually have negative effects.
It probably will be for the benefit of all in the longer scope - it's basically putting the technical superiority before the market share that in many cases (not all) is among the biggest benefits of FOSS development.

So, I'm okay with MS contributing code only because it benefits them (that does not make me automatically change my view on them) but also think that whatever the effects on linux adoption are the ability to better run Windows VM's on Linux is a good thing for Linux too. Of course I'm hoping for growth of Linux, just not by keeping some technical improvements out of it.

*and by technically better I mean anything that makes it better for any possible use(s) without making it worse for other uses.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[robsku]

Indeed, and to be specific they bought themselves so called "open" document standards of their own, which have little to do with being open or standard.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Subjective]

people who clamp on GPL violations back it up with proof - i.e. showing what signs indicate that the violation occurred.
They don't just tell companies to pay them royalties or else.
Microsoft did not reveal which parts of the Linux kernel it found infringing, even though it has the code to read through.
claims of GPL violations are based on evidence in the published binary: comparison with a known GPL binary, telltale signs of known code (symbol names) and sometimes the actual GPL itself quoted verbatim inside the binary
These claims of violation come with hard data - which bytes are which values, and why that's bad. It's not a claim of 'you're violating the GPL because you copied GPL code. I won't tell you which GPL code you copied, or how I know, I'll just say that I'm the owner of that code'. That's insane.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Deviate_X]

I personally would never code open source software for Microsoft APP store to benefit... #deathtowidowsphone #longliveandroid

These changes prepare the way for this http://www.neowin.net/news/vlc-for-windows-8-funding-exceeds-kickstarter-goal

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[kthreadd]

If you by useless mean allowed Google to base the Chrome browser on Apple's WebKit

WebKit is based on KHTML, and Apple didn't have a choice about the license since it's LGPL. Apple's conduct vis-a-vis the KHTML developers was unfriendly to say the least.

Of course they had a choice. It's not like they were forced to use KHTML. If they didn't wanted to contribute then they could have developed their own browser engine in-house and kept it closed for no one else to use, yet they decided to contribute to the greater good and share their innovations with the rest of the world.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Subjective]

If Nvidia or AMD did this to support their video cards, we would all be cheering about what a great thing this was. So why is it different for Microsoft?

Because Nvidia and AMD sell hardware.
When Microsoft releases open source drivers for the hardware it sells, we all celebrate.
Here, Microsoft releases open source code that provides support for their software. If you don't own that software, and the contribution is not intellectually fulfilling in any way, you gained nothing. The unwritten assumption here is that hardware is good for something, and you buy it to do that thing for you. You don't buy software so you don't have Microsoft's software platform to need support for. It's an assumption of complete lack of commercial software. It's probably valid in some academic circles

In other news, I agree that it's stupid to be angry at present Microsoft for things we felt back in the 90s. Microsoft is a corporation. Like people, it can change over time. And like crimes have a statue of limitations, the blame liability suffered by Microsoft must be finite. Otherwise they truly have no reason to become good - if they'll always be judged as evil.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[kthreadd]

And why is that wrong? It does help FOSS. It makes Linux into a better alternative for those who wants to run it on top of Hyper-V.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[stenvar]

Trying to portray Apple's use of KHTML as some kind of altruistic act is ridiculous and offensive, given their past abuses of open source software.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[kthreadd]

Google probably have more contributions. Great work Google.

Microsoft's contribution may be specific for running it on their VM, but there's nothing wrong with that. It's still a contribution. It's only a problem if you're down-to-the-BIOS everything has to be free. For the rest of us, running Linux on Hyper-V is a feature.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[kthreadd]

What abuse are you talking about? They based their engine on top of free software, despite that they didn't have to. They improved it a lot and released their changes which helped it became enormously successful and is now used within almost every smartphone.

How is that ridiculous and offensive?

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[NotBorg]

It's that I find Google's selfishness more useful than Microsoft's selfishness. I don't think I'm alone with that either. So, to answer the question in the headline, as a selfish developer, no Microsoft is not the most friendly for open source. It's fine to help yourself but when you actively look for ways to help yourself and avoid helping others... not gonna win my selfish vote. Google helps themselves and there's a lot of incidental helping to others. Microsoft seems to be making a point of making sure they don't help anyone else while helping themselves. I'll take Google's accidental over MS's intentional any fucking day. I'm a pig like that.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[NotBorg]

If they contributed, they contributed.

I gave blood once ~10 years ago. I'd hardly rate myself as a leader to the cause. Microsoft's contribution to open source is rather small and on par with me giving blood once. Sure, it helps, it's nice, it's better than nothing. It hardly makes them a big name in open source.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[stenvar]

They based their engine on top of free software, despite that they didn't have to.

If you think Apple had the capability of whipping up a working HTML engine from scratch and bring it to market in the time they needed, you're extremely naive. Apple has very limited and focused software development capabilities, and they certainly had nobody capable of creating a browser engine from scratch. They usually deal with this by buying up some company, but there are so few good independent browser makers that they didn't even have that option.

What's offensive is that you portray Apple as some kind of open source hero. Jobs tried to rip off gcc and they tried to force the KHTML team to sign non-disclosure agreements over bug reports, and had a major falling out. That's on top of their generally offensive behaviors, like their look-and-feel lawsuits and their ridiculous patents. Apple has been a far greater bully and threat to open source than Microsoft.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[kthreadd]

Microsoft contributes to more than just Linux, including opening a lot of their own (previously closed) products. They even brag about it on their website if you want to read what they have to say about it. It's not just a one-off thing.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[kthreadd]

You must be right, developing and maintaining their own operating system and large parts of the userland for it clearly isn't as hard as building a web browser.

And gcc; seriously that was in the 80's, are you still hung up about that? And like it or not but he changed his mind, used gcc and contributed back.

But keep on believing that Apple is just a big evil bully if that makes you happy.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[NotBorg]

I'm aware of the propaganda and the non-portable code they release for only one platform. They're still not a big player in open source. Maybe if they were, they'd be able to sell a fucking phone. Even if they released the same volume of source code as one of their competitors... what difference does it make if no one uses it?

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[stenvar]

Where do you get these fantasies from? Apple didn't "develop their own operating system" either. They bought NeXT, and NeXT's operating system was a combination of the Mach kernel, the BSD userland, BSD and GNU utilities, and the gcc compiler. This was after Apple had completely lost control of the evolution of MacOS and run that OS into the ground.

And, yes, developing an HTML renderer is harder; for the OS, Apple can simply decide what to implement and how, whereas for HTML rendering, they have to be compatible with billions of pages.

As for "that being back in the 80's", Apple doesn't seem to have changed: they still rip off open source and they still engage in look-and-feel lawsuits.

Yes, I keep on believing that Apple is a big evil bully, and it seems like others are coming around to my point of view.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[jones_supa]

It's just modern life. I don't see anything terribly wrong with Reddit or Twitter. High-quality nerdy stuff can be stuff from those services too.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Anonymous Coward]

I just verified the numbers and it seems to be mostly actual sales.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[jones_supa]

Did Bill Gates run over your dog or something? Back in the day MS made unstable, insecure and incompatible products, and we didn't like the company. Now they have brushed up and make much more usable stuff, so it starts to look like a viable solution again. It's just business.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[jones_supa]

It creates jobs, and from that viewpoint can be seen as ethical.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[RedHat Rocky]

Instead of having most of us regurgitate Microsoft's evil record, how about you do some work and go find the antitrust charges they were found guility of in Europe? A start at least.

Next, try to find a PC without a Windows License forced on you. Building it yourself from pieces doesn't count (thank goodness as that's how I do all mine).

Have fun.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[tlambert]

If you truly cared about the use of hashtags, you would do your best to ensure that all of your slashdot postings were more than 140 characters/

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Anonymous Coward]

DR-DOS? Um.. no, not just that. Have a look here, and note the CONTINUOUS history of abuse:

http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Gadget_Guy]

Ah yes, the alledged "evil" open document standard that inconvenienced nobody, and the UEFI secure boot "fiasco" that wasn't invented by Microsoft and closes a huge security hole. These aren't evil or treacherous. And for that matter, my example of DR-DOS was another example of a non-event beat up. No version of Windows 3.x was shipped that didn't run on DR-DOS.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Anonymous Coward]

No. I will punish them until they cease to exist, and if they have a gravestone...I will piss on it

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[shutdown -p now]

Microsoft has published some of its software as open source, including their F# compiler and several .NET libraries like Entity Framework and ASP.NET MVC. They have also contributed to the Linux kernel.

Why do F# guys get all the glory whenever FOSS at Microsoft is brought up? :) We do cool stuff, too. And, to the best of my knowledge, we are the only FOSS team at MS that takes outside contributions, and gives write access to our code repository for contributors.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[grcumb]

If they contributed, they contributed. Does it matter that they did so because there is a demand for their VMs to run Linux, rather than out of the goodness of their hearts?

Well, if we're being completely utilitarian about things, then no, it doesn't matter. But it also doesn't matter to me that they did contribute, because that didn't benefit me in any way. In a broader context, I'm not sure it matters to many people at all, because the vast majority of sysadmins running Microsoft VMs are using them to run virtualised Windows.

Anyway, if the argument is that Microsoft is a better company now for having learned to come to terms with the GPL, if only to admit, effectively, that it has a right to exist... well, that doesn't carry a lot of weight for me, one way or the other.

BUT... to use this as an argument to further speculate that the MS App Store is more FOSS-friendly than any other... shit, where do I begin?

First, let's be clear that none of the app stores do much at all to help FOSS, though the Google Play store at least doesn't get in the way too much. Second, while I don't have anything against Microsoft's store, this particular line sounds like a cynical and rather pathetic appeal for us FOSS developers to like them, à la Sally Field. My first reaction to this line is to flinch and check the wings to make sure Ballmer isn't hiding there, warming up for another monkey dance.

Why do I shy like this? Because like it or not, MS have earned their reputation for duplicity, amoral behaviour and outright dishonesty. It's actually a little pathetic to see them trying to make nice, kind of like meeting the school bully stocking the shelves at $BIGBOX and watching him squirm and toady as you pick out a new $3500 home entertainment system[*].

-------------
[*] Happened to me once. It wasn't as satisfying as I thought it would be. In fact, it saddened me.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[DeathFromSomewhere]

I found one in 15 seconds on google. Can we stop pretending these don't exist now?

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Anonymous Coward]

the "extinguish" part is easy... they evolve a tech into new and useful directions. people adopt it as a de-facto new standard. the world spins on. bitter people who wanted the future to work out differently frame it as an intentional move to destroy their pet standard, even if the entire previous version is supported in the new one. people hate MS for past crimes and they hate them for being able to TRY something new now and then. when a small percentage of devs pick it up, that translates to many users.

Embrace: "wow that is useful. we are going to use it"
Extend: "hey, we see a need for X. we built it into this newer version."
Extinguish: "cool. you like it. let's formally evolve this standard"

the only way MS can win these people's hearts and minds would be to either 1) just use other people's standards and never try to evolve anything or 2) not even write code any more. just pack it in and dissolve

you are right, there is no real 'extinguish' phase.. time just marches on. no one killed css version 1. better stuff came out. same with stuff MS touches.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Anonymous Coward]

True, and seconded. But then they cut their 2012 Q4 dividend, and nixed it going forward. Not returning value to your shareholders after a 143 year history of dividend payments is not good. I'm a happy user of a Lumia 920, and MSFT shareholder, but still.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty hilarious watching you neckbeards bend over backwards trying to make excuses to justify your butthurt. In fact it's pretty well the only reason I keep coming to slashdot. Keep it up.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Anonymous Coward]

you are right. MS is public company. they do what their peers do. it is evolve or die.

riddle me this: why does google not put out an android phone? go ahead, say "nexus" but they don't put out nexus. the co-design. here is why: google is no better than MS. they knowingly step on MS IP (let's not argue over if it should be patented, just admit it is and move on. this is the point.). they have partners sell it and those partners get sued. why? damages. since google does not profit on android or even give end users executable versions, they are legally in the clear. if MS sues them, they can get all of the nothing google made. if MS sues an android vendor, they can get damages. for the vendors, it is a simple equation: "does the settlement and royalties cost me less than windows phone?" often, yes. so they use android. for MS, they accept the revenue stream and do not sue google for the nothing they'd get. google pretends to be innocent as they intentionally rip off IP.

Literally everybody wins. this is our sad and fucked system. they are all bad guys doing bad guy things. google steals from MS. android vendors fence the shit and make theirs. MS extorts droid makers. bad guy circle jerk.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Anonymous Coward]

Nokia turned a profit this past quarter for the first time in a long time.

Nokia has three parts; dumbphones, smartphones and networks. Two years ago two of those were profitable, the dumbphones and the smartphones. Of those, one partnered with Microsoft. After those two years, once again two parts are profitable and one is lossmaking. However, what has changed is which part is lossmaking. The one which partnered with Microsoft has made huge losses even bearing in mind the subsidies from Microsoft.

In doing this calculation, remember Nokia's ASHA phones were produced by the dumbphone division but are often being included in the smartphone numbers, even though they aren't. If you see numbers like that then you have to separate out the two types.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[Anonymous Coward]

I contributed to the Linux kernel too, but unlike microsoft, my contributions meant that certain chipset APICS work well every day with all software running on the computer (to the benefit of at least 200 million people, all day every day). I didn't do it just so that someone could pay me money for software I wrote that will also run on their computer O/S. I'm just one person, and I didn't get any money for what I did. microsofts contributions were far less substantial, and ultimately for their own benefit (income). As an entire company, they contributed less than I did (and I didn't contribute all that much). Don't give them more credit than they deserve.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[robsku]

Buying standards that should not pass is not OK for me - neither is hardware vendor lock-in disguised as a security feature. Even if it prevents minor sector of malware from being able to infect the system (or at least being able to boot after that...) it's still not OK - there is no security justification for not allowing users to disable UEFI from BIOS (or whatever the ARM equivalent).

Oh, and getting caught and switching strategy does not make the original intentions good. And if you try and cause mischief but fail to harm anybody/thing you're still an asshole.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[RedHat Rocky]

Good Job! Now compare that price to a similar machine with a Windows License.

Having purchased a system76 myself, I already know and yet paid the extra anyway.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[DeathFromSomewhere]

If you know they exist you maybe shouldn't say shit like this:

Next, try to find a PC without a Windows License forced on you. Building it yourself from pieces doesn't count (thank goodness as that's how I do all mine). Have fun.

That Windows license wasn't forced on you. You made that choice with full knowledge of your options. Pretending otherwise is basically lying.

Of course the Linux version of the same hardware is more expensive. Windows PCs come with the bundled crapware that subsidizes the cost of the operating system. Linux PCs don't have the bundled crapware and therefore cost the OEM more money. Not to mention most people who buy the Linux version did so by mistake and end up returning it.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[RedHat Rocky]

I know linux-based machines are sold, I also know some people are clueless about them. Hence, "try to find", success: use google.

Now, the idea a Windows PC is cheaper, it's a GOOD thing and GIVES OEM's better pricing strategies....uh, wow. How is that good for the buyer again? Or really, for the OEM: eventually taking payments for putting crapware on machines will cost in sales. Certainly one of my reasons for not buying them.

Never mind, I'll be building my own, avoiding Microsoft licenses and encouraging others to do so.

Re:Microsoft and Open Source don't mix

[strikethree]

So I don't get what is so bad with Microsoft contributing to open source.

Nobody was claiming it was bad. I hear people saying that it is not a flag that Microsoft can wave around yelling about how Open source friendly they are. :)

No.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it does not.

ADVERTISMENT

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this? An advertisment in the FOSS-community saying "Please, please, please, we're your friends at MS, come to us and provide us with apps"?

Let's comment on the headline's question in like half a year when we know how it actually works over there?

Re:ADVERTISMENT

[Runaway1956]

In half a year, things may actually look rosy to the people who jump on the bandwagon. I say, let's ask again in about three, or five years. Sometimes, it takes time for an evil plan to come to fruition.

Re:ADVERTISMENT

[Subjective]

In half a year, things may actually look rosy to the people who jump on the bandwagon. I say, let's ask again in about three, or five years. Sometimes, it takes time for an evil plan to come to fruition.

How is this comment a troll?
There's no statement of a false fact here. There is no statement of any fact. There is an opinion, and it's not offensive or unrelated or anything that might be called a troll.

Slashdot does not have '-1 disagree'. '-1 troll' is definitely not the right substitute

slashvertisement?

[gatzke]

MS advertising coffers well spent, looks like.

Enjoy that new surface, timothy.

Re:slashvertisement?

[Anonymous Coward]

idiot with a keyboard, yet another fine example.

Bill?

[lorinc]

Could it be that the most open source friendly app stores will be the ones run my Microsoft?"

Bill, is that you?

Re:Bill?

[martin-boundary]

Whoa, Ted! How'd I end up in this excellent slashdot username?

"only to the extent required"

[Anonymous Coward]

Who wants to write a new open source license which conflicts with these terms to the maximum possible extent?

Re:"only to the extent required"

[TemporalBeing]

Who wants to write a new open source license which conflicts with these terms to the maximum possible extent?

Last I checked, they had a pretty broad exception for OSI approved licenses - meaning the rest of the terms pretty much didn't apply.

It'd be ironic, yes; but they're pretty desparate for market share in the mobile space - that's the only reason they're doing it.

No

[EzInKy]

Microsoft is about their bottom line, plain and simple. Even if open sourcing something today is profitable, they would not hesitate to close it tomorrow if it hurts profits.

Re:No

[DogDude]

Microsoft is about their bottom line, plain and simple.

That's a bizarre thing to say. They're one of the oldest software companies in history. Companies don't survive (and thrive) as long as they do without some forward thinking. You want to consider doing some reading about this history of the company, especially in relation to other companies that size, and re-consider your admittedly short-sighted response.

Re:No

[causality]

Companies don't survive (and thrive) as long as they do without some forward thinking.

Or a strangehold monopoly on an entire market. That helps too.

Re:No

[causality]

Or a strangehold monopoly on an entire market. That helps too. I'm sure that'd help if it were true, sure. I don't think what you're saying applies in this particular situation, though.

So you cannot fathom how the Windows monopoly on 90+% of all PCs sold for the last couple of decades may have provided them a steady revenue source? Interesting.

Re:No

[archshade]

The best app store is no app store.

There is nothing fundermentally wrong with an app store. The problem comes when a sole appstore is the only method to load software onto your device

A device can come with any appstore with any bend you other a barrel TOS, and it is OK by me as long as there is a (supported way) to either side load software or add an alternative store/repository. It's important that this is in some way supported by the manufactureer of the device. For example if the the device comes with only pulling software from the "official" app store, but there is a toggle button allowing other software sources to be enabled or even better a list of appstore address that can be added to/enabled/disabled/deleated, and proritised (like sourses.list in apt systems)that would be great. Fine for a device to come out the shop locked down (in some ways better for the masses), but give people who know/care a proper way to add knew sources.

Having to jailbreak or run an exploit to get this functionallity is not acctepable so I will not have an iOS device. I do not know the situation when it comes to WP7/8.

Re:No

[RedHat Rocky]

You forget a certain antitrust charge against Microsoft? You forget another one that actually was tried and punished?

Either you are ignorant or on the M$ team.

Re:No

[Nerdfest]

Absolutely. Ubuntu has the best software store right now because you can plug external sources directly into it and have them kept up to date with the same mechanism as the OS components. As for open source friendliness, Microsoft obviously doesn't even approach the best store.

Re:No

[DogDude]

So you cannot fathom how the Windows monopoly on 90+% of all PCs sold for the last couple of decades may have provided them a steady revenue source?

So what are you saying? The Microsoft has been resting on its laurels and doing no long term planning, due to its domination of the desktop OS market? If that were the case, how have they maintained said "monopoly" while successfully expanding into other businesses? Their continued growth is due to short term profit taking? I don't think that any rational person could argue that to be true in any way, whatsoever. It sounds to me like you're just regurgitating the classic childish Microsoft hate, while not making any attempt to reconcile what you're saying with reality.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

...Windows monopoly on 90+% of all PCs sold for the last couple of decades...

Waaa... waaaaa... cry some more. All that time, where was everybody else? Apple had their own game. Where the fuck was Linux? Oh yeah, I know what you'll say. "Waaaaaaa! We couldn't compete with the illegal monopoly that Satan had". Fucking faggot. I've tried a least one distro ever few years for the past 15 years. It's pretty easy to see why Linux never got into the double digits in the desktop share.

Re:No

[Bert64]

Maintaining a monopoly is easy, you don't have to compete like everyone else does, you just have to be "not horrendously bad" and you will retain customers. Any competitors have a serious uphill struggle, and have to be significantly superior in order for anyone to even consider them against a dominant monopolist.

Continued growth is also easy when you have a monopoly in a growing market, you will just grow along with it - again, your competitors have to be hugely superior before anyone will even consider them while you just have to be mediocre.

Similarly expanding into related markets is easy when you dominate one, you can leverage that market to force yourself into others - even if your products are inferior to the competition. You know that the potential clients will be buying your products in the market you dominate, so you use that leverage to get yourself into others be it through freebies, or scuppering the competition due to incompatibility or exclusivity deals.

Re:No

[gtall]

Doesn't not compute: Microsoft and forward thinking. When? The only thing I would call forward thinking is realizing that if they got PHB's sold, they could force their Crapware down companies' throats.

Re:No

[LuSiDe]

You sir, are the Oracle.

Re:No

[Subjective]

Yeah, he said Microsoft is making money from their monopoly
So of course he meant they're not using the money for research and development. Just blow and hookers

Re:No

[causality]

You were contesting the truth of Microsoft's Windows monopoly on desktop PCs. You wrote "I'm sure that'd help if it were true, sure." Well, it is true. This has been recognized in various courts around the world, as well as market share figures.

I made no claim about Microsoft resting on its laurels. For someone so quick to accuse another of childishness, perhaps you could learn not to put words in the mouths of others. I merely implied that Microsoft's "survival" (your word) was all but certain, given its entrenchment. Therefore it is nothing to be impressed about.

I would be much more impressed with a startup that had to rise above multiple competitors.

That's all I was saying. No more, no less. If you want to have a dick-waving contest, I am sure many others here will oblige you.

Re:No

[causality]

Yeah, he said Microsoft is making money from their monopoly So of course he meant they're not using the money for research and development. Just blow and hookers

It's refreshing to see another person who can handle basic reading comprehension. Not twisting the words of another to make them look wrong when they have in fact spoken the truth, well, that's a sign of adulthood. It's something I respect anywhere I see it. Thank you.

Re:No

[DogDude]

By your stellar logic, you must be an apologist for the US Judicial system. How's that Patriot Act working for you? How about the DMCA?

Re:No

[TemporalBeing]

Microsoft is about their bottom line, plain and simple. That's a bizarre thing to say. They're one of the oldest software companies in history. Companies don't survive (and thrive) as long as they do without some forward thinking. You want to consider doing some reading about this history of the company, especially in relation to other companies that size, and re-consider your admittedly short-sighted response.

True; however, that left the building with Bill Gates. No one else has ever had a vision for the company, and it's floundered pretty badly since.

Apple bites the hand that created them

[Anonymous Coward]

Apples entire software ecosystem rides on top of free and open source software. There aren't enough superlatives to describe the hight of their hypocrisy. Come on Apple, stop the the stupid bullshit. Your business was rescued from the trash bin of history by your decision to refactor your entire operating system strategy around open source components. The very genesis of Apple was the result of communal sharing of information. Now you stiff arm the very same developers who made your success possible. There is no excuse for this.

Re:Apple bites the hand that created them

[Stupendoussteve]

Have you ever visited Apple's Open Source page? You'll find they do share code, even purely BSD code.

http://opensource.apple.com/

Though I'm not really sure what your point is, nor how you got +5. Apple is not even mentioned in this story, what "stupid bullshit" are you talking about?

Re:Apple bites the hand that created them

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey numb nuts; quite a bit of Microsoft's networking stack and most of the underlying AD infrastructure is based on OSS, but that doesn't further you completely incompetent argument, does it? Fuck stick.

In other "news"...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does Cadillac have to best car for fish? Tune in to the next Slashdot to find out!

Altruism isn't in it.

[Anonymous Coward]

They have recently updated the terms of use for software developers in their Windows Phone app store to allow any OSI-approved open source license — even the GPL

Of course they have, because apps matter for phones in a weird way. There's no killer app - that is, there's no massive advantage to be gained over your competitors. But not having a metric assload of apps, some of them possibly solid, will put you out of the competition.

Allowing open source licenses simply increases the number of apps available; furthermore, it lets you spew useless marketing statistics ("Over one billion apps!").

Simplez

[Anonymous Coward]

They are desperate to widen their App range. They will take whatever goes to die on the WP8 platform.
Granted it's a vicious circle. Costumer don't buy that WP crap, therefore less apps, therefore less phone sold. Ad infinitum.

People seem to forget

[andydread]

Ms has always tried to get popular FOSS applications running decent on their platform in a futile attempt to negate the need to run GNU/Linux for those said apps. Then when Linux became the killer app Ms went out of their way to accomodate Linux on their hyper-v system. This is not because they want Linux or FOSS around in the marketplace. They know that if they do not accomodate FOSS their system will become more and more marginalized by emerging tech.

Re:People seem to forget

[gbjbaanb]

that's true - I remember when MS paid Apache and Zend lots of money to make sure PHP and Apache web server was easy to install and worked well with Windows.

I'm sure those guys took the cash and said "stupid Microsoft, our stuff already works well on those platforms" and then built nice installers and walked away.... leaving Microsoft able to say that you can run all your PHP-style webapps on Windows. Around the same time they made Windows for Web (ie a cut-down version that web hosts could use instead of Linux) and the number of webhost servers with Windows OS increased dramatically.

Re:People seem to forget

[shutdown -p now]

Microsoft is traditionally seen as being all about Windows, but times are changing, and it's unwise to turn other prospective customers these days. PHP on Apache on a Linux VM running on Azure still brings in money, and if it wasn't an officially supported option, it would likely be a VM running somewhere else, not a VM running Windows. Hence, Azure offers preconfigured CentOS and Ubuntu VMs now. Similar examples can be found in many other product units - Hyper-V guest support for Linux, emphasis on standard-compliant HTML5 output in ASP.NET MVC, and so on. It's the only reasonable strategy in a world where a single platform is not dominant everywhere anymore.

Re:People seem to forget

[TemporalBeing]

Ms has always tried to get popular FOSS applications running decent on their platform in a futile attempt to negate the need to run GNU/Linux for those said apps. Then when Linux became the killer app Ms went out of their way to accomodate Linux on their hyper-v system. This is not because they want Linux or FOSS around in the marketplace. They know that if they do not accomodate FOSS their system will become more and more marginalized by emerging tech.

MS only started that strategy when those FOSS applications on Linux really started eating their lunch - back around 2005. Prior to that, they were utilizing the Unix compatiblity layer to get people to run their applications on Windows in order to get Windows in the shop, and then force them to get performance by converting to Win32 from POSIX. Problem with applications like PHP and Apache was they already had those Win32 layers and very good performance, but the performance under Linux was still extremely better. IIS couldn't compete with Apache - still can't.

BSD License

[EzInKy]

The BSD licencse is to blame for this. Apple could not hide improvements to the open source they improve and distribute under the GPL.

Re:BSD License

[Anonymous Coward]

The BSD licencse is to blame for this. Apple could not hide improvements to the open source they improve and distribute under the GPL.

Nor would they have any incentive to create a competitive advantage if they used the GPL.

Re:BSD License

[EzInKy]

So only creating a better product would have given them an advantage.

Re:BSD License

[geek]

Apple doesn't hide the BSD code. They freely distribute it as Darwin, which is OSS and freely available. Its the entire under system of the OS. Apple has contributed a great deal to OSS over the years. There is no "blame" for using a license that freely allows them to do what they need to do. The GPLv3 is a non starter in the enterprise world.

Not everyone is a basement dweller like RMS. Some people have lives and families to feed.

Re:BSD License

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the point was exactly that creating a better product under the GPL would not have given them an advantage.

Re:BSD License

[Anonymous Coward]

The BSD grants freedom to code while the GPL grants freedom to users.

Re:BSD License

[Patch86]

The GPLv3 is a non starter in the enterprise world.

That must be why Android is such a commercial failure, eh?

In market share terms, GPL-based Linux (in the form of Android) is dominating the market with something like 75% of sales, with BSD-based iOS only having about 15%.

And on the desktop, proprietary still reigns supreme (in the form of Windows), with both open source options languishing in single-digit percentages. And while Apple may be more popular than Linux in this market, it would take a very brave man to declare that Apple is successful in the enterprise market...

Re:BSD License

[Anonymous Coward]

..and to be more detailed, the GPL restricts one freedom in order to guarantee another.

The only thing more free than the BSD license is the Public Domain.

Re:BSD License

[nuonguy]

I'm replying just to undo my accidental moderation mouse click.

Re:BSD License

[kthreadd]

The GPLv3 is a non starter in the enterprise world.

That must be why Android is such a commercial failure, eh?

Linux itself is famously only GPLv2, and Android itself is under Apache.

Re:BSD License

[geek]

Android is for consumers, not enterprise. Android is a total piece of garbage in the enterprise thanks to Google constantly dicking with the MDM API's. It's worthless.

Re:BSD License

[gtall]

Android succeeds because companies can use it freely, and that only because Google makes their money elsewhere and can afford to give it way.

Re:BSD License

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple also uses plenty of GPL'd code in their products - it's not a pure BSD effort as you seem to imply. Either you are being intentionally misleading, or you are just obtuse. Is this why Apple isn't ready for the "enterprise world"?

Not everyone is an obnoxious leech.

Re:BSD License

[Anonymous Coward]

Why in the hell would Apple give a shit how I licence *my* code? Don't want to run my app in your "enterprise" because you have some kind of irrational fear of GPLv3 then don't.

Re:BSD License

[Anonymous Coward]

So this philosophy is totally cool for apple but totally unacceptable for microsoft?

Re:BSD License

[Stupendoussteve]

Apple doesn't hide the BSD improvements either. Go visit their Open Source page. You can build Darwin if you put in the work.

Re:BSD License

[blind biker]

Not everyone is a basement dweller like RMS.

RMS is not a "basement dweller" - he is a man concerned with the rights of everybody, a visionary that sacrifices his life for the betterment of other people's lives. Even yours.

Re:BSD License

[Subjective]

The GPLv3 is a non starter in the enterprise world.

That must be why Android is such a commercial failure, eh?

Yes, that's exactly why there are no GPLv3 phones out there

Re:BSD License

[Subjective]

But but but ... GPL! I don't know anything about copyright or the projects involved in the GNU/Linux OS or the people and politics behind it. I know 'GPL'!
Wait. Are Linus and RMS different people?

Re:BSD License

[Subjective]

How would they gain an advantage when releasing their better product as open source?
You can make a street so great it'll be better than any night club. But you still won't be making any money.
"I started with the advantage. I kept the advantage the entire fight. And then I lost"

Re:BSD License

[Tough Love]

The GPLv3 is a non starter in the enterprise world.

That must be why Android is such a commercial failure, eh?

Yes, that's exactly why there are no GPLv3 phones out there

GPLv2 phones rule the world. What's your point?

Re:BSD License

[Subjective]

The GPLv3 is a non starter in the enterprise world.

That must be why Android is such a commercial failure, eh?

Yes, that's exactly why there are no GPLv3 phones out there

GPLv2 phones rule the world. What's your point?

I was supposed to have a point?

The GPLv3 is a non starter in the enterprise world.

That must be why Android is such a commercial failure, eh?

yes, that must be it

Re:BSD License

[geek]

He also thinks pedophilia should be legal
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman

"On sex

        [P]rostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia ... should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness."

RMS is a piece of shit.

Re:BSD License

[Anonymous Coward]

> The GPLv3 is a non starter in the enterprise world.

You should read the SFLC legal primer about it. Legally speaking (i.e. ignore the groupthink) GPL3 is actually more business friendly than the GPL2 was. Do a web search for "GPL death penalty" for one reason why.

> Not everyone is a basement dweller like RMS.

There is no reason for you to be a dick and resort to ad hominems.

> Some people have lives and families to feed.

IBM and RedHat make billions off GPL software. But you knew that.

Re:BSD License

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck yourself. he is a self-centered ass who seems to believe freedom is defined as the freedom to force others to share his beliefs on software. he cloned the unix environment rather than come up with his own. think it over: he let corps invest heavily in the trial and error part and then re-implemented it. almost promised acceptance. I support OSS. I cringe when he talks.

there is a place for Apple, MS, Linux, BSD.

trying to tell people that it is 'unethical' to buy or sell code? why? it removes freedom? bullshit. I am far freer in a world where I can use MS software to communicate across continents than one without it. OSS is lovely but, short of government funded research grants and corp olive branches for goodwill, it rarely CREATES new ideas in tech people use to get freedom. no, it re-implements paid-for solutions when the expensive part of proving out the idea is done.

fuck Stallman. that started the moment he decided to clone unix tools rather than show some real freedom and think of something totally new.

feel free to downmod as AC. it was not worth burning the karma to log in and rant at an idiot.

Re:BSD License

[DeathFromSomewhere]

From the same quote:

Besides, I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants).

What... the... fuck...

Re:BSD License

[Anonymous Coward]

This is +5 Insightful? Did somebody miss the Funny option? Because Darwin is a joke. Try using it for anything, anything at all!
  The community that initially grew around Darwin has basically given up, because Apple seems determined to thwart them in everything they do, giving them old, incomplete codebase releases and lousy documentation and no cooperation at all. Apple's OSX is a shining example of the problems a BSD-centered community can run into, problems inherent in the BSD license.
  The GPL, on the other hand, solves this problem, and actually makes it possible for multiple business ventures to safely cooperate on a codebase without the worry that everything will fly apart into competing "secret-sauce" codebases, as happened to Unix. Saying "The GPLv3 is a non starter in the enterprise world" is a case of begging the question.

And to top it off, this troll calls RMS a "basement dweller." +5 Insightful, my entire ass.

Re:BSD License

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS might be one of the most widely traveled and traveling FSF /OSS personnel around the world.

Re:BSD License

[Anonymous Coward]

he is a man concerned with the rights of everybody, a visionary that sacrifices his life for the betterment of other people's lives. Even yours.

No, he is a man concerned with his own rights on his terms and thinks he knows what is best for everyone. He is actually extremely selfish; certainly as selfish as any of the "closed" corporations such as Microsoft and Apple.

Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[MikeRT]

Let's look at the bigger picture...

1) Windows 7 is arguably the best desktop OS out there right now for the vast majority of the public. Even many of the Apple fans I know, myself included, have been forced to concede that Windows 7 is better than OS X in many ways.
2) Microsoft has started to really become an advocate for open standards to the point of throwing IE 9 under the bus and repeatedly rolling the bus over it in front of their customers.
3) Microsoft's tools produce standards compliant web output.
4) Microsoft has officially incorporated jQuery into their web process and extended it in an open way to make it really work with Visual Studio.
5) Microsoft has never once threatened Mono or any open source .NET effort even as the Java world was nearly torn apart recently.
6) Microsoft has spent the last decade really ramping up their security efforts in what amounts to a "come to Jesus experience" on security.
7) Microsoft is starting to allow their own products like ASP.NET MVC to go FOSS.

I give them credit as a former Microsoft-hated, Apple-loving Java/JavaScript/Groovy/Ruby developer. This isn't Bill Gates' Microsoft. It's actually a damn shame that it's not Steven Sinofsky's Microsoft because that might have played a truly dangerous stalking horse to Tim Cook's Apple.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[ClaraBow]

Even many of the Apple fans I know, myself included, have been forced to concede that Windows 7 is better than OS X in many ways. Could you please cite your sources? All of your statements are factoids and you are trying to pass them as facts -- this is Slashdot, we know better!

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sick and tired of people applauding Internet Explorers incredible changes. Yes, it's good! So what! The only reason that happened, is because Firefox and Chrome were forcing it off the market and into extinction. Years and tonnes of money later it's good, but still barely competing.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Windows 7 is arguably the best desktop OS out there right now for the vast majority of the public. Even many of the Apple fans I know, myself included, have been forced to concede that Windows 7 is better than OS X in many ways.

Lurpak is arguable the best butter out there right now for the vast majority of the public. Even many of the butter fans I know, myself included, have been forced to concede that Lurpak is better than Kerrygold in many ways.

Windows 7 is indeed a great release. It's good enough to finally move me and a lot of people from XP. Is it the best desktop OS? That's highly debatable, and would be more useful to say that Windows 7 is best for x use, while Mac OS X (or any OS) is better for x. Your willingness to speak for the majority is commendable, and I wish you luck at the upcoming Conference of the Workers' Party of Korea, supreme leader.

On the other points; yes, this isn't the Microsoft of old. The very public embrace of FOSS is a relatively new phenomenon (and yes, I know they've been contributing code for quite some time now). Microsoft are doing it for the same reason I see Apple doing it - it makes business sense. Microsoft is no-longer able to steamroll standards through by becoming the de-facto standard. You remember back in the 90s when sites commonly had those "requires (or optimised for) x browser" badges? That's all but gone away, and modern sites largely render just fine except in niche browsers.

Even in the areas where they maintain a monoculture, legal pressures prevent them from exploiting it as they would have back in the day. While .Net has seen some adoption, it lags way behind Java. It's in Microsoft's interests to allow Mono to proceed, and is indeed a good thing that in 2009 they announced that they wouldn't pursue patents in that area (only five years after Mono first appeared).

I too give them credit for making some smart moves to grow their business and avoid antitrust issues. It's not as if either Microsoft or Apple execs one day wandered in to a board meeting and suggested FOSS and open standards because it's the morally best and spurs innovation.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[geek]

Let's look at the bigger picture...

1) Windows 7 is arguably the best desktop OS out there right now for the vast majority of the public. Even many of the Apple fans I know, myself included, have been forced to concede that Windows 7 is better than OS X in many ways.

I work in a mixed environment, Windows 7/OSX and Linux. I've never heard an OSX user claim Windows 7 is better. Especially on a portable where the gestures on OSX make it absolutely the best experience out there, if you bother to learn it. I've never in fact seen someone with a MacBook Air, for example, switch it to windows. I've never even seen them run boot camp.

I can't think of a single thing Windows 7 has that OSX doesn't but better. Windows 7 is a decent OS, emphasis on decent. It's the best Microsoft seems to be able to do. That doesn't make it good, nor does it make it better than OSX in any way shape or form.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[ArsonSmith]

I'd mod you funny, but it's always hard to tell when a mac fanboi is serious.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi,

Posting from chrome in windows 8 on a MBA. Why ? because at the moment where I had to buy a new laptop, the MBA was the best quality/price but now, it's no longer the case.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[stenvar]

1) Windows 7 is arguably the best desktop OS out there right now for the vast majority of the public. Even many of the Apple fans I know, myself included, have been forced to concede that Windows 7 is better than OS X in many ways.

I find Windows 7 (and 8) fall seriously short in those areas that actually matter in day-to-day usage: file management, WiFi configuration, software updates, disk management, device driver installation, system cleanup, and a few others. All those are unnecessarily complicated and tedious on Windows.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

I have both and you are very, tragically wrong.

Mac OS X is still a Unix underneath all the pretty bits. I have unix code from a long time ago and linux code from the last decade and they all compiled directly with one conditional for include file location. There are some subtle timing differences because of BSD vs monolithic kernel choices. However, they all work. I recall trying to get some of that same vanilla code running on any version of Windows. Never gonna happen.

W7 is still MS-DOS-8 underneath all the crud. I bought it because W8 is here and I needed to support more games then were currently available on Steam for Mac. Works fine for that. I installed Chrome and FIrefox immediately solving a significant number of problems. I only turn it on when I want to play a Steam game. Or one from Gog.com. It serves no other purpose.

And to put the final fork in your coffin (love doing the analogy mixing) the performance of W7 still fails to scale. Every multiprocessor or multi-core processor still consistently loses at least one of its cores/processors in execution. If you want to know why just look at Win_Main (or whatever it is called now) and watch EVERY message in the system go flying by.

All your other list items mean nothing. Their tools are horrendously expensive and are tied to the some of the most restrictive licenses in the world. All presented by a convicted monopolist that has a history of IP theft driving by the Greedy Soulless Trio of Gates, Ballmer and Allen.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh common dude. I had been ms developer and user for many years. Windows sucks. You can notice the windows suck even if you eont use anything else. But once you try OS X you see how completelly shitty it realy is

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Windows 8 is better than Windows 7 in every way on a technical level. Its funny that Windows 8 is so good that the only thing people can really complain about is the change of the start menu which i find to be an improvement.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[marcosdumay]

1) There is this thing called "Linux" out there. Have you tried it? KDE is better than W7 in so many ways... And IceWM is better in other ways.

2) Mozilla throwed IE < 9 under the buss, Chrome started the bus and made it move. MS was just watching all the time, trying to save it. After it was dead, MS released IE 9 (it is still a piece of shit, mind you) out of desperation, and in a way that had the least possible impact. Also, stopping figtinhg against something (because you lost al your forces) does not equals supporting something.

3) Yeah,ok. I don't know about that. (You are talking about Visual Studio, right? Because Word...)

4) That's good news for .Net developers. Not a reason to develop in .Net and not a reason to put MS in a good light. I'll make sure some .Net developers around here know about it.

5) You either have a funny definition for "threatened" or you don't know a thing about Mono. MS threats are what shape the entire project.

6) Yeah, they either do that or peole will use something else. Gotta love a free market.

7) What does that mean?

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[phantomfive]

Wow. Just wow.

"Microsoft has started to really become an advocate for open standards to the point of"

No, they have not. Microsoft is an advocate of what benefits them. Have you forgotten already the OOXML problems? They will only support open standards until they can extend and extinguish them. You are confused because right now they've been forced to move back to the Embrace step, but if they could find a way to own access to the internet, they would.

"Microsoft's tools produce standards compliant web output."

Great, maybe they can attempt to implement C99 now 12 years later. I am still required to cripple my C code so it will be accepted by Microsoft's crappy compiler, years after everyone else has moved on. Respecting standards in one place doesn't mean they actually respect standards.

"Microsoft has never once threatened Mono or any open source .NET effort"

OK, but they have threatened patent action against open source. Do you REALLY believe they won't attack Mono if they find it in their interest? They will, whether you believe it now or not. Don't be naive.

"Windows 7 is arguably the best desktop OS out there right now for the vast majority of the public."

OSX is Unix with a usable GUI, that's basically the win right there. Microsoft does deserve credit for respecting backwards compatibility, though.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 8 is based on NT, not DOS.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're doing all those things on a day-to-day basis, you're doing it wrong. Badly wrong.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[steelfood]

Sinofsky? You mean the guy who came up with the clusterfuck that's Windows RT/8? Really?

I'd much rather have J Allard at the helm, the guy responsible for the XBox and the guy who came up with the Courier. Give me the visionary. I couldn't care less for the Jobs wannabe.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Bert64]

MS only ever advocate open standards and interoperability in markets where they are doing badly, or where forced to do so by external forces...

In markets they dominate, they always try to do the exact opposite.

Come back when they start advocating ODF and CalDAV etc.

They may not be threatening mono, but while java code is cross platform by default (and by accident) .net code often only works on mono if specifically written to be cross platform, which is just another way to keep smaller platforms down.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

And firefox was only good because IE6 was forcing everyone else off the market and into extinction. Your point?

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

OS X even does right-click context menus better: two-finger trackpad gesture.

BTW, Macs have come with two 'buttons' for years now, so that was pretty lame.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[_xeno_]

I've never heard an OSX user claim Windows 7 is better. Especially on a portable where the gestures on OSX make it absolutely the best experience out there, if you bother to learn it.

You are aware that with just about every current Windows laptop out there for the past, oh, couple of years at least, those gestures work too? Either people figured out how to work around Apple's patents or Apple finally decided to license them, as it was solely multitouch patents blocking Windows from doing it before.

Although I will admit that I've never heard an Apple fanboi admit that Windows is the better OS, even when they end up spending all their time in a Windows 7 VM because they can't actually do everything they need to do for their job on OS X.

Plus, there's that whole thing where Apple beat Microsoft at "tabletizing" their desktop OS. How's that Launchpad thing they forced on everyone going? You know, the Windows 8 start screen without live tiles and without touch support.

Or the notification center you access by swiping from the edge of the screen. Except, again, no touch support, so instead you have to swipe from the edge of the trackpad, something that happens accidentally so frequently that it's just obnoxious.

Apple beat Microsoft to their own version of "Metro" but for whatever reason, no one gives Apple crap about it.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[PCM2]

Microsoft are doing it for the same reason I see Apple doing it - it makes business sense. Microsoft is no-longer able to steamroll standards through by becoming the de-facto standard.

But this was predicted, wasn't it?

What's that Gandhi said? "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

How many boxes has open source ticked off on that list?

Don't hate Microsoft. Just smile and nod. And if they become amazingly successful by using open source because "it makes business sense," and they play by the rules and they quit using dirty business tactics and they compete on merit and open source becomes an everyday part of their business ... congratulate them.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

You are aware that with just about every current Windows laptop out there for the past, oh, couple of years at least, those gestures work too?

I always hear this from Windows users when a new version comes out. "You know that feature you've been using for years and you said it's what makes Macs better, Windows does that now, too. So, see, Windows doesn't suck."

Good old Microsoft. Always one step behind.

I've never used a Windows laptop with multi-touch gestures, but everyone I know who owns a Windows laptop has a cheap piece of shit like a netbook. Everyone I know who spends a decent amount on their laptop gets a Mac. High dollar Windows laptops are like Lexuses -- it has a lot of the same features as a BMW, but in many ways it feels cheap and it doesn't have the amazing driveability the BMW has. They match the beamer feature to feature on everything except the matters discerning drivers care about. With a Lexus you get a riceburner painted in gold, but it's still a riceburner and drives like one. Might as well go with a regular Toyota and save some money.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that 50%+ of users use IE (and are none the wiser about alternatives because they can't be bothered to learn at little), and many major businesses use IE and won't even come close to stopping...

M$ really didn't have to compete to make sure they still had a majority marketshare for their browser.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Stupendoussteve]

The gestures are there on other systems, but they "work". I've not used a non-Apple product yet that isn't jerky when running even simple jestures like two-finger scroll (including my ThinkPad).

Apple's Metro doesn't get crapped on because it isn't mandatory. Launchpad is not forced on anyone, it will pop up when you buy something from the store but the Application itself is still in the Applications folder and easily accessible. You do realize that every gesture in OS X is configurable? They default to natural scrolling or swiping from the edge of the trackpad, but you can change this from one Preference Pane.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

5) Microsoft has never once threatened Mono or any open source .NET effort even as the Java world was nearly torn apart recently.

I'm still not exactly clear what happened to Novel in that regard since that was settled behind closed doors.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[DarwinSurvivor]

Ok, I'll bite, but I'm letting go right after.

1) Windows 7 is arguably the best desktop OS out there right now for the vast majority of the public. Even many of the Apple fans I know, myself included, have been forced to concede that Windows 7 is better than OS X in many ways.

Highly debatable, but I've never seen it so I'll let you have that one. You really should try KDE though.

2) Microsoft has started to really become an advocate for open standards to the point of throwing IE 9 under the bus and repeatedly rolling the bus over it in front of their customers.

They didn't throw it under the bus, they jumped out of the way when they saw the bus coming and didn't have time to save it.

3) Microsoft's tools produce standards compliant web output.

Only because their shit wasn't working in standards-compliant browsers and had no choice.

4) Microsoft has officially incorporated jQuery into their web process and extended it in an open way to make it really work with Visual Studio.

Made someone else stuff work on their stuff. Useful to devs that use Windows and didn't have a joice about being nice because of the license.

5) Microsoft has never once threatened Mono or any open source .NET effort even as the Java world was nearly torn apart recently.

Nope, they just keep it 1-2 releases behind so it's useless to anyone not using Windows.

6) Microsoft has spent the last decade really ramping up their security efforts in what amounts to a "come to Jesus experience" on security.

Riiiiight. Putting masking tape on the holes of a sieve does not a cereal bown make.

7) Microsoft is starting to allow their own products like ASP.NET MVC to go FOSS.

Let me know if/when they ever finish that, until then it's like taking most of the mines out of a field.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Viruses.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Subjective]

7) Microsoft is starting to allow their own products like ASP.NET MVC to go FOSS.

Let me know if/when they ever finish that, until then it's like taking most of the mines out of a field.

I'd say it's like taking the mines out of the middle of the field, or just one edge. So there's still no way to cross it without getting blown up.
(FOSS? Last I heard, Microsoft's released code was more like - don't modify this, this is not what we compile internally, it's for reading not for compiling, here have a lawyer cookie)

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's look at the bigger picture...

1) Windows 7 is arguably the best desktop OS out there right now for the vast majority of the public. Even many of the Apple fans I know, myself included, have been forced to concede that Windows 7 is better than OS X in many ways.

Source? Or even SOME DETAILS? Yeah, thought not.

2) Microsoft has started to really become an advocate for open standards to the point of throwing IE 9 under the bus and repeatedly rolling the bus over it in front of their customers.

They're such huge advocates of open standards, that they've refused to release a decent, standards-compliant browser on their still-most-popular version, Windows XP. Yep.

4) Microsoft has officially incorporated jQuery into their web process and extended it in an open way to make it really work with Visual Studio.

Ah yes, the "we've embraced this open thing, and extended it". The only thing funnier than watching a MS PR rep cheer about jQuery is watching him demo it on his iPad...

6) Microsoft has spent the last decade really ramping up their security efforts in what amounts to a "come to Jesus experience" on security.

That's like claiming that a former hooker is now the most chaste woman in town, because she's spent the last decade trying to suck fewer dicks for money.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Teckla]

I work in a mixed environment, Windows 7/OSX and Linux. I've never heard an OSX user claim Windows 7 is better.

I run both Windows 7 and OS X, and find that both have pros and cons, with no clear winner. That being said, I'd like to enumerate a few places where I think Windows 7 is better than OS X:

• Remote Desktop. Windows 7 is insanely better for remote access to the desktop.
• Window handling. Windows 7 reliably maximizes windows. (No, OS X's zoom button is not the same.) Win+Left and Win+Right for quickly putting windows side-by-side. Win+Up and Win+Down for things like maximize and restore/minimize.
• Windows task bar vs. OS X dock. This comes down to personal preference, but I strongly prefer the Windows task bar.
• More window handling. I find it unwieldy to use Cmd+Tab to choose the app, then Cmd+` to choose the window within the app. I much prefer the simplicity of Alt+Tab to get all the way where I want to go. Also, I prefer how Windows first offers to switch to the most recently used windows, whereas Cmd+` cycles through windows in order without regard to last used, making it hard to quickly switch back and forth between windows if there are more than 2 in the same app.
• Window menus vs. desktop menu. I much prefer menus be attached to windows. I cannot count the number of times I've seen people tripped up because what appears to be the active OS X window is not, so the menu from a different app is being displayed. Sometimes, that different app does not even have any windows open anymore.

Now before you accuse me of being an "M$ shill" or something, I could just as easily come up with a list of things I like about OS X better than Windows. I'm not picking a favorite horse, just pointing out there are, in fact, reasons someone might really prefer Windows to OS X. I still consider them about even, each having pros and cons, and again, with no clear winner.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Tough Love]

Microsoft got so obsessed with security that they dropped the ball on everything else and they still are about as watertight as a crepe paper boat.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[_xeno_]

"You know that feature you've been using for years and you said it's what makes Macs better, Windows does that now, too. So, see, Windows doesn't suck."

Right click.

Also true preemptive multitasking and virtual memory.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[jones_supa]

I find Windows 7 (and 8) fall seriously short in those areas that actually matter in day-to-day usage: file management, WiFi configuration, software updates, disk management, device driver installation, system cleanup, and a few others. All those are unnecessarily complicated and tedious on Windows.

What? Tools for system cleanup could be better (a third party tool such as CCleaner sometimes comes handy). But otherwise you're spouting crap.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[bcrowell]

This isn't Bill Gates' Microsoft.

You're obviously not getting a lot of love from the slashdot crowd for asserting that MS is less hostile to FOSS than it used to be. I think realistically it's a mixed bag.

I would also point out that Bill Gates himself is not completely hostile to free information. For instance, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation helped to fund the creation of this physics textbook, which is under a CC-BY license.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[geek]

You are aware that with just about every current Windows laptop out there for the past, oh, couple of years at least, those gestures work too?

No they don't. Not even close. Windows gestures are absolutely nothing like the interaction on a Mac + Mission Control. Not even the same ball park. Nice try.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

YES! Seriously, why is it so difficult to set up a WiFi network in Win7? On my Linux box it is (as I recall, too long ago) something like 4 clicks... on Win7... pain, agony, Google, uncertainty.... and how the FUCK do you delete a network?!

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[magpie]

Where is shrill -1 when you need it.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[HiThere]

Microsoft has never once threatened Mono or any open source .NET effort"

OK, but they have threatened patent action against open source. Do you REALLY believe they won't attack Mono if they find it in their interest? They will, whether you believe it now or not. Don't be naive.

Actually, that's wrong. It was in the very early days of Mono, but a Microsoft vice-president (whatever that means) announced in the press that ".NET is our technology and we will defend it" in a context that was clearly a threat to Mono. There may have been no follow-up, but it was said, and I never saw a retraction.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously renaming a file in OSX in a pain in the ass

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[UnknownSoldier]

> I can't think of a single thing Windows 7 has that OSX doesn't but better.

More games.

Alt-tabbing in fullscreen mode on OSX is smoother - you can alt-tab all day long on OSX without a hiccup. On Win7 most games "hiccup" due to crappy DX / driver design.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[DeathFromSomewhere]

Not quite. Entity Framework is actively accepting contributions.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Sean Hederman]

1) There is this thing called "Linux" out there. Have you tried it? KDE is better than W7 in so many ways... And IceWM is better in other ways.

You're SO RIGHT! This is it, 2013, the Year of the Linux Desktop!

People just don't UNDERSTAND how much Linux is better than Win/OsX, but I'm sure that this newfangled KDE and IceWM will make them come to their senses. I mean, they must be new right, it can't possibly be that people have seen them and been underwhelmed?

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[terjeber]

Here is one thing, though it doesn't apply to the "vast majority of the public". Microsoft Windows runs big-boy software better, more stable and with less problems than OSX. Even Apple agrees with this, their entire iCloud infrastructure relies on Azure and Windows.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[terjeber]

I have both and you are very, tragically wrong

No, just tragically ignorant.

W7 is still MS-DOS-8 underneath all the crud

Probably the dumbest thing ever written by an AC on /.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[rubycodez]

no, windows is only the best for those who don't know any better. I use MacOS at work, since it is a "Unix" it has many commands built in for dealing with text, for automating tasks, for having a unified view of the filesystem (insteead of silly dirve letters), for running open source softwares. I find certain Linux UI to be better designed and simpler for keystrokes and clicks required to perform common tasks (osx multi-finger chorded command are too numerous)

so:
1. GNU/Linux with Mate, KDE or Cinnamon superior
2. MacOSX - ok and usable
3. BSDs - remember, this is for desktops - some loss of open source functionality, not able to run everything and driver support often an issue
3. Windows - crippleware

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[rubycodez]

and
4. windows 8 - going one step further to cripple the crippleware, non-discoverable UI, single app focused (rather than multi-app task focused), throwing away years of proven and evolved menu/windowing system design. I just *bought* two licenses of windows 7 pro for myself and family member to run necessary windows apps in vm, because windows 8 is so very bad and uesless

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Moondevil]

Great, maybe they can attempt to implement C99 now 12 years later. I am still required to cripple my C code so it will be accepted by Microsoft's crappy compiler, years after everyone else has moved on. Respecting standards in one place doesn't mean they actually respect standards.

They sell a C++ compiler why should they care about C? C is officially legacy for Microsoft.

http://herbsutter.com/2012/05/03/reader-qa-what-about-vc-and-c99/

There is no law that forces C++ compilers to support plain C. It made sense when the language did not had a big user base.

Plus there are plenty of C compiler vendors for Windows that would happily sell you a compiler.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[phantomfive]

You don't like C. I hate you. Microsoft doesn't support standards. These are all facts.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Moondevil]

Wow! Is there a law that says all operating system vendors are obliged to provide a C compiler, even if developed in another system programming language?!

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[phantomfive]

No. But Microsoft's shoddy C support causes me pain and misery. Supporting C99 is not hard. You agree with Microsoft's lack of support for C99. Therefore I hate you, for supporting something that causes me pain.

There's no law that says I can't hate you. But never fear, my hate is short lived. Repent and I will stop hating you.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Moondevil]

Fear?! I pity you, poor guy that cannot pay for a C compiler...

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

1) There is this thing called "Linux" out there. Have you tried it? KDE is better than W7 in so many ways... And IceWM is better in other ways.

2) Mozilla throwed IE < 9 under the buss, Chrome started the bus and made it move. MS was just watching all the time, trying to save it. After it was dead, MS released IE 9 (it is still a piece of shit, mind you) out of desperation, and in a way that had the least possible impact. Also, stopping figtinhg against something (because you lost al your forces) does not equals supporting something.

3) Yeah,ok. I don't know about that. (You are talking about Visual Studio, right? Because Word...)

4) That's good news for .Net developers. Not a reason to develop in .Net and not a reason to put MS in a good light. I'll make sure some .Net developers around here know about it.

5) You either have a funny definition for "threatened" or you don't know a thing about Mono. MS threats are what shape the entire project.

6) Yeah, they either do that or peole will use something else. Gotta love a free market.

7) What does that mean?

That means try to find some decent software that will run on either, sure you can find equivalents, but only 1 maybe 2.. Your choices are very limited with both... I like Mac, and I like Linux, but overall software availability is almost non-exeistent on both.. Mac have its uses, Linux has it's uses, and Windows has it's uses. The bottom line is use whatever gets the job done.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[phantomfive]

It's not a matter of pay, there are good free compilers.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft isn't interested in C, they've said so. Don't be foolish enough to believe that a C++ compiler should be able to handle modern C.

Re:Not Bill Gates' Microsoft

[mcgrew]

I think he's serious, and I agree with him. And I'm not an Apple user, of my 3 computers one runs XP, one W7 and one kubuntu 10.04. I do agree that W7 is the best MS OS I've used, but it's not as good as kubuntu (not the current clusterfuck, Shuttleworth is insane).

My notebook runs W7. An older one I had several years ago also ran W7 and had the gestures spoken of by the OP. I hated that "feature" and it took me two months to figure out how to shut it off ("Tap to click" drove me crazy, every time I touched the pad it clicked). It wasn't under "mouse controls" in Control Panel where you would expect it to be, it was in a hidden icon in the bar at the bottom.

I installed kubuntu dual-boot and it, too, had the gestures. Less than five munutes later I had them shut off; the controls were in kubuntu's version of Control Panel under mouse controls, right where you would expect them to be. This is my biggest gripe with MS, the way they make changes for no discernible reason annoys me.

Although I think W7 is their best, they went downhill in a few ways. XP's file manager was useable, W7's has all sorts of illogical behavior.

I like that W7 requires fewer reboots to keep it running than previous OSes, but the only time I boot the Linux computer is when I want to shut it off. I don't have to reboot for anything except upgrading the kernel.

When I boot the Linux PC, it comes up as if it had never been shut down, with all the files and documents that were open when I shut it down. I wouldn't mind Windows reboot naggings so much if it didn't lack this feature. The feature's not mandatory, you can easily have it boot like a Windows computer if you prefer it that way.

When I boot the Linux PC, it enters the password automatically. This is easily changeable, too. You have to hack the registry to make Windows do this.

I haven't found any features in Windows that KDE lacks. If there are any I'd like to know.

Windows is prettier, I'll agree to that. It's a capable OS. But Linux is better, period. So why do 2/3 of my computers run Windows? Because you choose an OS to run the programs you already have or will need. The XP computer needs to run EAC (Aramok's not good enough) and W7 hasn't annoyed me enough lately to bother upgrading to Linux.

I don't know about Apple, the only Apple in the house is an old G3 in a closet somewhere, unplugged. But I'd be willing to bet that it's a better OS than Windows.

IE < 9 not IE 9

[MikeRT]

Gotta love forgetting to escape characters in your comments...

No

[Anonymous Coward]

The best app store is no app store.

Anything else just restricts you to their walled garden.
Even if it looks fine now, your app is still at the mercy of the gardener (app store owner) and they can change their policy at any time.

Your admission, not mine

[EzInKy]

Provide a list of companies that shows more of them succeded by partnering with Microsoft than failed and I'll consider admitting to short-sightedness. Nokia doing away with all but MS based phones is the most blatent result of doing deals with Microsoft.

Re:Your admission, not mine

[Gadget_Guy]

Provide a list of companies that shows more of them succeded by partnering with Microsoft than failed and I'll consider admitting to short-sightedness. Nokia doing away with all but MS based phones is the most blatent result of doing deals with Microsoft.

I fail to see how this relates to your original contention that Microsoft would close all their open source products to make a buck. Here it is again:

Microsoft is about their bottom line, plain and simple. Even if open sourcing something today is profitable, they would not hesitate to close it tomorrow if it hurts profits.

Instead of backing up that assertion, you have lept to a different subject and hoped that nobody would notice. But still, I will play. Considering that Windows runs on 90% of computers in the world, that means that by far the majority of computer manufactures are successfully partnering with Microsoft just as Nokia is doing now.

And on your original point, if Microsoft closes their open software, then we can just use the last version that was open. It is hard to extinguish software when the code is made public.

Re:Your admission, not mine

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see how this relates to your original contention that Microsoft would close all their open source products to make a buck.

He's saying they're Indian givers.

Re:Your admission, not mine

[Anonymous Coward]

Intel
Adobe
AutoCAD
Various Game Cos.
Netflix
Education Software Cos.
Anti-Virus Software Cos.
Network Security Cos.
3rd Party Win Forms Software Cos.

But, overall, they've held back IT by at least a decade.

No, Bill G's microsoft was growing where it wanted

[CdBee]

This is desperation in action, in a market where they arent a leader and probably never will be

Fooled once, fooled twice, fooled a third time

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't trust them.

Don't help Microsoft by putting FOSS on their platform. It helps them by eroding the price difference between MS and FOSS platforms.

MS strategy is to embrace openness when it's not in a dominant position, and to restrict openness when it is. It's a strategy we've seen again and again - e.g. the ability of early versions of Office to import and export freely, to the point where now it's hard to export into earlier versions of Office! This is just another example; there's nothing to stop them changing the terms of their licence later.

Don't trust a scorpion. It's not your friend.

best place ever

[Anonymous Coward]

And here I thought that Linux's package managers were the best place for FOSS software. Guess I was wrong.

Re:best place ever

[kthreadd]

And here I thought that Linux's package managers were the best place for FOSS software. Guess I was wrong.

They are often not app stores, they are software archives which are usually not directly controlled by the software author. App stores are based on the idea that you publish a software product on the store for download in exchange for a fee or for free. You can submit updates at any time, sometimes with a review time. You can also stop distributing the software on the store if you so like.

The traditional Linux package manager is usually managed by the Linux distribution community. The original author is usually considered an external party, often called the "upstream". The original author has very little control over what happens with the software once it is distributed through the package manager. And it may also be modified or updated by the distribution independently of the original author.

Re:best place ever

[sponse]

Linux's package managers are the best place for FOSS software. App stores are based on the idea of sell you stuff. When the only way you have to install software without void your warranty is the App Store, the idea is abuse the consumer.

Re:best place ever

[kthreadd]

Linux's package managers are the best place for FOSS software.

I completely agree, but I would also put in a good word for compressed tar files on ftp.

App stores are based on the idea of sell you stuff.

Selling software is obviously i feature, but the main idea would rather be to consolidate software distribution channels.

When the only way you have to install software without void your warranty is the App Store, the idea is abuse the consumer.

It can also enrich the user by simplifying software distribution and installation, which could be a benefit to the user. The average iOS user has somewhere between 20 and 40 third party applications installed; many of which would never install any software at all on a regular computer, where they would obviously have much more "software freedom".

ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

conclusion is practically a non-sequitur.

ZOMG app store

[Anonymous Coward]

Debian has a pretty decent apt store for FOSS. I hear rumors that Fedora and Argh have similar solutions.

Re:ZOMG app store

[gmuslera]

Dont forget Ubuntu, that have an paid app store right in the distribution (and is very friendly with FOSS apps), and even if they use "app store" in the cellphone/tablet realm you will have it with the incoming ubuntu mobile.

Re:ZOMG app store

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubuntu us unfortunately also very friendly toward non-free software, and recommending non-free software is unethical.

Re:ZOMG app store

[iamacat]

Because users are idiots who can not decide for themselves weather to pay.

Re:ZOMG app store

[marsu_k]

I hear rumors that Fedora and Argh have similar solutions.

I run Arch myself, and like it a lot - but perhaps I should give "Argh, Linux!" a go sometimes, it sounds interesting.

As per Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

"Embrace. Extend. Extinguish."

Don't they all?

[dbrueck]

Maybe I haven't woken up all the way, but I don't get the point of this article. All app stores (Amazon's, Google's, Apple's) have open source apps to some degree or another, and tons and tons more apps are built on open source libraries. So Microsoft's app store is on par with ... everybody else? Ok, great.

Ha ha ah ahaahahahahhhaaha, this is rich....

[einar.petersen]

So Microsoft then company that wants to block any other operating system from running on computers by introducing their "safe" boot system. The same company claiming patents and is in my opinion blackmailing/extorting Linux companies, graciously want to let you sell your code through their APP store.... so that you can save them from going under.... pleeeeeeeeease! Somebody hurry and call the doctor I have this funny rippling effect going all through my body accompanied by odd abrupt sounds and I can't seem to get off the floor upon which I am rolling.

Re:Ha ha ah ahaahahahahhhaaha, this is rich....

[einar.petersen]

Sorry for the spelling mistake, should have been "the company" - I found it hard to hit the correct keys while typing... ;)

Not quite there yet

[CharmElCheikh]

I was hoping to read that if you promised to publish only FOSS on the app store you wouldn't have to pay for the yearly developer's account fee. Too bad, that's not there. To develop for windows phone 8 / windows 8 and be able to test on real phones and publish on the app store, you need:
- a yearly 99$ developer's account fee
- a windows 8 pro 64 bits installation to run visual studio 2012
- to test on the emulator, a computer with a CPU supporting SLAT; therefore either a pretty new PC or a virtualization software that supports it, like the latest Parallels Desktop, which is not free either

Once you pay for all that making your software not free anymore is almost natural.

Re:Not quite there yet

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you can't just have anyone uploading malware. There is a screening process and a small entry fee to weed out most of the easy stuff and cover some of the management overhead.

Welcome to any distribution platform that is looking for profit. There is always a basic entry amount.

for now... because it's empty

[stenvar]

I have yet to find any useful app in the Microsoft app store. Microsoft is probably desperate to get anything in there.

But they can change their TOS at the drop of a hat, so just because they may be "open source friendly" right now doesn't mean that they won't become quite open source unfriendly again when their app store picks up.

Re:for now... because it's empty

[shutdown -p now]

Kindle? Skype? Netflix? YouTube?

Re:for now... because it's empty

[stenvar]

All of those are apps I use on my tablet or in the browser, not on my desktop.

Re:for now... because it's empty

[shutdown -p now]

Windows Store does not host any classic desktop apps. Which, in practice, pretty much means that it is there for tablets.

Re:for now... because it's empty

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't give a f*ck what you call it. I have a desktop computer (i.e., a computer sitting on my desktop). It came with Windows 8. It shoves its ugly tablet interface right in my face. I want to run apps on it. Windows Store doesn't contain any of the apps I actually want to run on my desktop computer. Is that so hard to understand?

Can you pass the binaries around?

[phantomfive]

Can you take the binary from your phone, give it to your friend, and have him run it on his phone? No? Then it's sure not GPL friendly, whatever else it may be.

Re:Can you pass the binaries around?

[iamacat]

GPL says nothing about being able to distribute binaries, just providing source when you do.

Re:Can you pass the binaries around?

[phantomfive]

Yes, yes it does. Read it again.

Re:Can you pass the binaries around?

[shutdown -p now]

You can distribute binaries. Your friend will not be able to run them (unless he has a free developer license and mucks around with packaging the app right for deployment), but it's a technical limitation, not a legal one. The whole point of this provision is that part of the license that would normally forbid the users from copying binaries (and doing other things that most proprietary EULAs restrict, but which GPL requires t be allowed) is overridden by the terms of the OSI-approved license that you use.

Re:Can you pass the binaries around?

[phantomfive]

That violates section six of the GPLv3, though.

Re:Can you pass the binaries around?

[shutdown -p now]

Yes, GPLv3 is not covered here. The far more common GPLv2 is, though.

Re:Can you pass the binaries around?

[Sean Hederman]

No, no it doesn't.

it says that when you distribute a "Program" you must include source. It says NOTHING about being required to distribute binaries. Such a requirement would be stupid in the extreme, because what kind of binaries? What if the "Program" runs in an interpreter or browser as JavaScript? What if I provided Windows binaries for an Android app?

Re:Can you pass the binaries around?

[phantomfive]

Such a requirement would be stupid in the extreme, because what kind of binaries? What if the "Program" runs in an interpreter or browser as JavaScript?

OK, you're being overspecific here to an extreme level of stupidity, but if you want to know all the details go ahead and read it.

Re:Can you pass the binaries around?

[phantomfive]

Really? Isn't the GPLv3 OSI approved? Or maybe the summary is wrong.......

Re:Can you pass the binaries around?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me get this straight. I pointed out that the GPL doesnt require binary distribution, and that requiring binaries would be difficult since it would be too difficult to get into the specifics of what kinds of binaries, or even if there were binaries. You then accuse me of being too specific (which was my point), ignore the fact that you're wrong, and point me back at the GPL that I clearly have read, and you clearly haven't.

This is an interesting form of argument, I believe it's called "being an idiot"

Re:Can you pass the binaries around?

[phantomfive]

Fact is it does require the WP binaries to be redistributed, which is the topic of this story. We're not talking about Javascript here, dude. Learn context it'll make you smarter.

Re:Can you pass the binaries around?

[shutdown -p now]

The summary is not wrong, but it is misleading.

The special terms of the Store license apply to any OSI-approved license, including GPLv3. But what those special terms do, is grant the exception to rules that would otherwise prohibit user to copy / reverse engineer / etc. If that exception is not enough to satisfy the terms of the license in question - as is the case with GPLv3 - then you can't publish.

Re:Can you pass the binaries around?

[phantomfive]

I see, so although the special terms apply to the GPLv3, the special terms don't allow exceptions for things the GPLv3 requires.

Re:Can you pass the binaries around?

[Sean Hederman]

No it doesn't. You can claim it does till you're blue in the face, but you're wrong.

Don't know how to make that any clearer. Provide clauses to back up your assertion or STFU.

Re:Can you pass the binaries around?

[phantomfive]

Don't know how to make that any clearer. Provide clauses to back up your assertion or STFU.

I would but you're rude so I don't mind if you also remain ignorant.

Re:Can you pass the binaries around?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pfffft! Brilliant! The old "pretend outrage to avoid admitting error" wheeze. VERY original. I didn't see that one coming, um, about three messages ago.

BTW, when grown-ups have discussions and one of them finds out they're wrong, they admit it, learn something and move on. Hopefully you should learn that before you leave grade school.

I thought there MIGHT be a chance you could provide some dredged up old GPL version that backed you up. Now I can see you've got nothing. Go away

Re:Can you pass the binaries around?

[phantomfive]

BTW, when grown-ups have discussions and one of them finds out they're wrong, they admit it, learn something and move on.

Time to move on dude, you're an idiot.

I thought there MIGHT be a chance you could provide some dredged up old GPL version that backed you up.

Most likely your incapable of reading for yourself, and you hope by insulting me, it will convince me to educate you. Sorry, I'm happy to leave you ignorant.

Re:Can you pass the binaries around?

[Sean Hederman]

I said go away, child

Re:Can you pass the binaries around?

[phantomfive]

You're a clever one. Dumb, but clever.

Re:Can you pass the binaries around?

[Sean Hederman]

I love it. You have a strap line about science by Feynman, yet you clearly don't fit to the ideals he would identify with. You make an unsubstantiated assertion, refuse to back it up when challenged and then run away when asked to provide evidence. In other words, completely antithetical to anything Feynman would stand for.

Right, here are the FACTS:

• The word "binary" and "binaries" appear precisely 0 times in the license text. "Object code" appears 21 times.
• It defines "Program" as "...any copyrightable work licensed under this License"
• Binaries cannot be copyrighted, code can.
• It defines "Corresponding Source" as not needing to "...include anything that users can regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding Source..." In other words, since object code can be generated from the source, it does not form part of the Corresponding Source.
• So, if you're distributing "object code", you must also distribute the "Corresponding Source", but if you're distributing source code, then "The Corresponding Source for a work in source code form is that same work"
• Section 6 covers distributing object code, and the rules for including source with it.
• There is NOTHING, NOTHING about having to distributed "object code" with source code.

The license I looked at is here.

In other words, you're wrong. You've been wrong from the beginning, but have flailed around like an idiot trying to avoid the difficulty of reading the license itself. I've read it several times before, along with the BSD, MIT, earlier GPLs and the MS licenses, and Creative Commons licenses. I am often asked to advise on software licensing issues for my main client, a stock exchange, as well as having drafted licenses for my company's software products.

However, even I was not so arrogant as to assume I was right, and I went and reviewed the license terms after your first (rude) reply to me.

Argument from authority is a logical fallacy, which is why I provide evidence to back up my assertion that your initial, and still unsubstantiated, assertion is wrong. This should not be necessary, since it is usually the person making the assertion who is required to provide the evidence to back their statements up. Of course, you refused to do this, petulantly claiming I had been rude, when in fact the rudeness came from you in your very first reply to me.

Either grow up, or shut up. Provide evidence to back up your assertion or go away.

"Dumb, but clever"; what a stupid comment

Oh, and change your signature, someone as intellectually bankrupt as you should not be associated with Feynman. Anyway, it's not even a Feynman quote, the real one goes "The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth”."

Now, for the last time, go away. Go play with your friends.

Re:Can you pass the binaries around?

[phantomfive]

Well that's good, you've managed to show you lack reading comprehension as well, though perhaps willfully in your attempt to win an argument. I will choose to believe that your reading comprehension is not in fact that bad, you have merely refused to read it accurately because that would mean admitting you were wrong.

Re:Can you pass the binaries around?

[Sean Hederman]

Oh look, another unsubstantiated assertion. Moron. Go away.

Re:Can you pass the binaries around?

[phantomfive]

No, you are entertaining me too much. Please go on.

Law of Headlines

[Anonymous Coward]

No. They do not.

Is this even serious?

[strikethree]

I was actually only going to post a LOL...

Does Microsoft Have the Best App Store For Open Source Developers?

Even if they do have the "best" "app store" for Open Source, all it really says is that the other app stores are terrible... and somehow or another, I strongly suspect that Google Play is a far more Open Source friendly app store than anything Microsoft deigns to allow Open Source in/on.

In other words, the question is wrong on so many levels that all it deserves is a LOL. I mean really, it seems to even presuppose that an "app store" is even a viable model for distributing software.

How much did Microsoft have to pay to get that headline even posted? ROFL. Seriously? Just wow. No shame at all. Microsoft? Open Source? Just kill me now. ( someone should take all the elements of this "should have taken my medication first" post and get an instant +5 insightful.)

They'd assert copyright ownership on the code

[Anonymous Coward]

thereby really stealing your copyrights.

Aptitude/Yum

[RedHackTea]

I'm pretty sure that Linux Distros' Package Management Systems are the best "App Stores" for FOSS developers, or is that just me?

Re:Aptitude/Yum

[1s44c]

I'm pretty sure that Linux Distros' Package Management Systems are the best "App Stores" for FOSS developers, or is that just me?

You are right. I'd add Gentoo's portage and FreeBSD's ports to the list too.

Re:Aptitude/Yum

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if you want to get paid for your work.

Re:Aptitude/Yum

[RedHackTea]

If a program is licensed under the GNU GPL and it's distributed to the public, anyone can just use the source code, compile it, and re-distribute the same, exact product on App Stores for free -- completely legal. The only thing they may have to do is change copyrighted images/logos/etc. FOSS isn't about money, but freedom. You usually make money from support, maybe ads, etc. -- something else besides the product/code.

Does China have the best prisons for dissidents?

[istartedi]

A bit hyperbolic perhaps; but the analogy is direct. As a developer, I wouldn't want an "app store". The PC inspired me to write software when I was younger. App stores just make me go, "meh!". Have fun jumping through proprietary hoops in the (usually) vain hope of some little morsel. The rest of us have already said so long and thanks for all the fish.

violation

[jbolden]

As far as I can tell Microsoft accidentally violated the terms of the GPL. When they were made aware of this they immediately ceased violating and worked hard to bring themselves into compliance. They might very well if there is a small damages claim by someone with standing pay.

That's what you would want violators to do.

Best App Store?

[davydagger]

not if you need to have your code signed by MS to let it run on RT, without hacking it, which there is a hack.

so they can censor and pull your apps like apple does?

MS is desperate cause no one gives a shit about their product. Same with nokia and there free case designs.

Does Microsoft..

[1s44c]

..Have the Best App Store For Open Source Developers?

No, due to Betteridge's law of headlines.

Betteridge's law of headlines

[darthdavid]

No.

My microsoft?

[Subjective]

It's *our* microsoft

except

[houbou]

I presume some of these 'tree hackers' must read the news and know about these devices. Shouldn't be too hard to figure out how to remove them from the trees prior to transport. Sheesh.. sometimes, it's better not to advertise every piece of knowledge in the news.

Re:No, Bill G's microsoft was growing where it wan

[Anonymous Coward]

That's such BS. First you piss on them for not doing the right thing. And then when they do the right thing, you piss on them some more. Microsoft-haters have truly gone low.

Most used plataform for FOSS

[Parker Lewis]

In numbers, most users of OpenOffice/LibreOffice, Firefox, and others FOSS stars run them in Windows. As the main source of money, for MS is Windows, they should allow a lot of FOSS software to complete the user experience.

It's called a loss leader

[tlambert]

First off the GP ignored another fee: you have to own a Windows Phone

Second, if a platform has no traction, you will often offer it on a loss leader basis. A loss leader is where you offer something for free or otherwise below your cost to produce it, in order to get future sales, either of add-ons, or of the product itself.

For example, Microsoft could have offered to refund all those costs for the first 10,000 apps published; likely it would have to be closer to 100,000, in order for them to get to iPhone App Store scale, but that could have been the offer.

Another way to go about it would be to pick the top 100 Apps (adjusted for same developer) in the iPhone App Store, waive the developer account fee, and send them the necessary hardware with the necessary software already installed for "$1 and other valuable considerations", with the proviso that they not use the hardware except for developing Windows Phone Apps, and a contract penalty to cover their costs, and an audit caluse as one of their considerations.

They could also waive the developer account fee on a yearly basis, based on you selling at least that much in value to Microsoft of your App(s).

Right now, they are trying to court the people who have said "I would develop for iPhone/iPad/IPod Touch, but Apple won't let me use open source software as part of my App" -- which is a lot of people, but many are politically motivated in their statements, and would not be goo App developers.

So yeah, this is a likely misfire by Microsoft, but it got you talking about them, didn't it? And it got the Windows Phone in the press (as news), which they could basically only get there by buying advertising otherwise.

They will cooperate...

[Genda]

Face it people... M$ is having a bad day. They need a whole mess-o-apps to make their also-ran tablet a viable choice in the face of more developed competition. Its crunch time. If they have to compromise on license and put a smootch mark on every developers left butt cheek, butt cheeks will bear lipstick. Line up for the M$ logo a pair of red pursed lips...

Uh, F-Droid?

[Rozzin]

The F-Droid app store, to use its own description "is an easily-installable catalogue of FOSS applications for the Android platform". They even do most of the work, like building your app from source, for you. And F-Droid doesn't even include non-FOSS apps to compete with the FOSS ones. How is Microsoft's thing more FOSS-friendly than that?

they obfuscate the build system. Darwin is dead

[decora]

at least OSS darwin is. you can go try to download, install, and run the 'OSS Darwin' yourself and see what i mean.

Don't forget Microsoft' long...

[DirtyLiar]

... standing IEEE policy for industry dominance and compitition minimazation:

I (will always) Embrace, Extend then Extinguish your protocol, program, or method.

Their other methods of defeating the Open Source movement and the GPL licence (among others) has so far failed. Why not try the EEE on a licencing model?

I certainly wouldn't put it past them.

And the simple answer is ....

[JasterBobaMereel]

No