Slashdot Mirror
ESR/OSI's letter to Microsoft
Andy Tai writes "Eric Raymond and a number of other people have written an open letter to Microsoft about their consideration to "open source" Windows. Basically they want Microsoft to free important parts of Windows source code in the proper way, in light of Microsoft VP's quote: "There are all different types of ways you can do open source. We are looking into whether we should get into open source
initiatives." The letter can be seen
over here. " Update: 04/09 06:41 by H :Add your voice to the petition setup by Norm to call upon Microsoft to Open Source Windows.
You can write you own letter to MS,
saying speaking for a group that you think
you represent.
I don't care.
Every active project has piles of stuff that's not good enough to make it into the release. I think the implication was that MS shouldn't just release that.
Finally, someone with a clue.
Although I think it should be mentioned that never has Microsoft said that they were even considering releasing an entire operating system as open source. All that Ballmer has said is that Microsoft may potentially release portions of the source to the public. They already license source to various universities and companies.
Even if they do release the entire source to, say, Windows 98, how many people are really going to want to download it and compile it themselves? Probably thousands, but not millions. There would still be a market for a compiled version with a point, click, and drool install program. Dovetailing with this, Microsoft could release the source with the exclusion that no-one else could sell the product as Windows 98; i.e., they could retain a trademark over the product name. This would still allow anyone to build the code, give it away, modify it in any way and to sell it as long as they don't call it Windows 98. Oh, and you can forget about getting any tech support from anyone if you don't use Microsoft's distribution.
Just a couple of thoughts.
I'm sorry, but THE EMPOROR IS NAKED!!!
"We in the open-source community welcome this development."
What, did you take a Slashdot poll that I missed?
The community welcomes nothing, yet. The self appointed "community leaders" are doing their damnest to muddy the waters of FREE software with this sort-of-free "Open Source". Listen, people, if Microsoft comes up with a "Microsoft Public License" and it is endorsed by ESR, it is the END for us.
NOW is the time to let Microsoft, Netscape, and everyone else inthe corporate world know that ESR only represents the OSI board, and has very limited support among the true free software community!
Winmodems aren't good for anyone, especially Windows users.
Because of the inefficiency of the code Win users need all the CPU power they can get.
Winmodems force you to use your $400 CPU to do the work of a $100 real modem. These things are just a way for unscrupulous HW manufacturers to make money on ignorant users.
I've often theorized that the reason ISV's have been
Windows-only for the past several years is that they've
had to put ALL their resources into getting their Windows
code to work properly, and just couldn't afford to support
other platforms like the Mac or OS/2 (which did have a
fairly large following a few years ago). And I wondered if
MS intentionally made it hard to support their platforms, since
it seemed to be in their interest.
Anyway, it's one thing to work for free on a project because
it's fun. But why should anyone give their time away for
the benefit of one of the world's riches companies?
The first few words of the open letter expose the
weakness in the effort. The Internet has allowed
indivuals to make a large difference, but yet the
words "we" are used to improperly generalize a
particular sentiment (in this case, welcoming
the open sourcing of Windows code). I, for one,
do not welcome the opening of the Windows source
code because it would only serve as a distraction.
However, I respect others' views. It would have
been better to use "we the undersigned", or to
have stated a statistic ("most of us"). Otherwise
the text loses credibility and is weakened.
flames to ttn@netcom.com
Hrm... this could be a big, big boost to linux. If Joe Schmuck could use his winmodem, it surely means more users. Whether or not thats a good thing is open to debate, but speaking from experience, most linux users start with windows, install linux in dual boot, THEN buy hardware with linux in mind. If your initial stuff is workable, you're just lucky. This could all change if linux supported winmodems.
:-)
NTFS support (dammit I need WRITE ability) would also be a BIG help in converting Big Corporation to the linux movement. Dual booting workstations
-BOredAtWork, who's actually working today...
Including the DOJ, WWF, SLA, KLF, the entire free software community, all the characters on Happy Days, and Barney the goddamn dinosaur.
He speaks for you, too, by the way -- and by daring to disagree with him in public, you have insulted him and endangered his tribe! Watch your step.
You probably think Dan Quayle is a real politician, too. Get outa here.
Besides the last few remaining OS/2 fans, I doubt having the source to OS/2 would be of any great use to any number of people. NT is far more interesting.
Won't happen. Microsoft liceneses the core from Sypglass (well atleast the 3.x series did, I'm sure 4 & 5 build from it) who intern commercialy licensed it from NCSA. I think their hands would be tied even if they wanted to open it.
if (...) goto labEl243;
laBel243:
Label243:
labEl243:
They refuse us a IE Linux binary,
what makes you think that they are going to just give us the Source code.
I don't see anything about "our tribe", either.
Huh? What reasons did you leave Windows for? Political ones? Yay. I never had to leave 95, because I was never really there in the first place. I use Linux/Solaris because I love Unix, not because I have a political chip on my shoulder about freedom. Now, I like the fact that it's free, and I appreciated what it's done for Linux and FreeBSD, but I'd still rather be using a closed Unix than an open Windows.
Evangelion, sans cookie
Here is an actual sample from Windows. Really. I'm not
/* Return the space. */ /* Not found, so crash. */
kidding. At least I think maybe I'm not:
/*
* Find the first space in a string and return it.
*/
int FindSpace(char *str)
{
for (int i = 0; i strlen(str); i++)
if (str[i] == ' ')
return (str[i]);
return (i/0);
}
I wonder what would happen if it turned out a lot of code in microsoft was just from other sources? ie; stollen.,,
Microsoft will undoubtedly use MSPL (Microsoft Public License). No, I don't think this exists yet. But the point is it will be sufficiently viewable and modifyable to be labelled "Open Source" by the self appointed ESR. But it will still be too proprietary to be included in any GPL'd code.
I mean, maybe I completely misread you, but it sounded like you were implying that there is some grand consensus about what free software is, and that the OSI people are somehow trying to hijack that for the sake of their own self-interest. The free software world is a much larger and more diverse place than the FSF and OSI. There aren't two sides to this conflict, there are as many sides as there are people who use free software.
One other unrelated observation: it's starting to look like all of the people who attempt to define what free software is, or what its goals are, or what its "about", are barking up the wrong tree in a major way. I'm referring to the FSF, OSI, and anyone else who claims that they know what free software is "all about". This is hard to put into words (and will likely sound like a bunch of pseudo-intellectual gibberish), but when I describe a piece of software as being free software, that's an adjective, not a noun. Free software is a type of software, but its freeness doesn't make it a thing in itself. Free software has no philosophy, goal, or collective direction, it just is. Saying that free software is "about" something makes no more sense than saying that proprietary software is "about" something, or that the color yellow is "about" something, or that a minty aftertaste is "about" something. I have a feeling that until people stop trying to make free software out to be far more than it actually is, there will be endless debates and conflicts and flames and whatnot in the online forums.
that's the new alignment system at work.. he's a +2 by default probably
You don't really think they're going to release driver source code, do you? The binary-only drivers are Microsoft's crown jewels, not the OS. They're what made creating a competitor to Windows so formidable in the first place.
Microsoft is probably under NDA on all drivers for hardware without public specs, so they won't be releasing very interesting driver source.
Wow, I'm surprised no one has thought of this. :)
They ought to moderate this post up.
Windows source code won't be free unless it compiles under GCC, or if Microsoft releases
their compiler. Linux wouldn't exist without GCC, and Free Windows won't exist without a free version of CL.EXE... (free in the FSF definition. source code and everything)
Several months ago, there was a bit of excitement about
Microsoft's offer to publish the specs. for Word document
formats. Well, I'd done word-processing software in a former
life, including writing I/O filters for IBM's old DCA/RTF
format; so I registered at their site to get access to the documents.
Now, you wouldn't expect Word's format to be all THAT
complex, would you? After all, it doesn't even support frames
like Framemaker, so there should just be one stream of text with
some embedded stuff. But it turns out to be an incredible
mess, and the spec. does not make it easy to understand
at all. There was no way I was going to chew through that
crap for free.
So, I'd be quite happy if Microsoft is insulted by the letter,
and does get defensive and uncooperative. Having seen
their behavior over the last 20 years, and considering that
the same people are running the company, I have no
trust in them to do anything in the public interest.
(first let me state that this is not about hating m$, but about history and logic.)
open source is anathema to m$. they are under serious attack from many sides, scared and willing to do anything to fight back.
what yould you do if you were m$, losing momentum in the market (as well as looking at possible breakup by the doj)?
time to do something dramatic, of course!
the ballmer thing is a way of testing waters. i bet they are reading every newsgroup and every web discussion page to see what effect the announcement had. their objective is not to release m$ code, but to divide the open source movement and to make gnu and linux support lose momentum by diverting resources to m$ (or infighting) as much as possible.
at best they might release some parts of the source, but in order to stay alive and make money they HAVE to retain total control over proprietary interfaces, protocols, components and applications.
resentment and rejection of this control is why many shops switched to unix in the first place, when ibm was king - way before m$ was even a startup. if anything, let's not forget that!
i do not think that osi had to do anything in response to the ballmer statement. all that the letter has done is increased the division among us and that is playing into m$'s hands.
the proper thing to do imho is to wait and see if anything actually happens. all this discussion takes up valuable time that can be spent on improving EXISTING open systems, not arguing about what m$ MIGHT do...
What? Isn't it a good sign that goto is rarely used? Anyway, whoever wrote that shares my philosophy in variable naming...
Besides, would you rather it said this?
if (...) goto label243;
.
.
label242:
.
.
label243:
.
.
.
label244:
Evangelion, sans cookie and forgotten password
to text without your permission? And, by implication, does it bother you that someone you are associated with feels completely comfortable in routinely misrepresenting himself and others.
The problem with ESR stepping over this little line and that little line is that he thinks everything is a little line, and he doesn't understand that it's not any more right to make small misrepresentations than it is to make big ones.
It's your reputation - not anyone else's.
Raymond clearly interprets any and all public dissent as a personal attack, as well as an attack on the free software movement in general. He seems to think that he, and only he, knows what's best. You know, papal infallibility and all that (his endorsement of the APSL was ex cathedra; I assume that he makes the same distinctions as the other Pope). If anybody suggests that dissent might be acceptable after all, the same standards apply: You're disagreeing with Raymond, therefore you are attacking Raymond (and by extension the entire free software movement). You're a nogoodnik by definition, so nothing you say carries any weight. In any organized religion worth its salt, orthodox doctrine states -- among other things -- that you're not allowed to question orthodox doctrine in public.
None of this leaves much room for negotiation.
"Thou shalt have no other advocates before Me."
-- Eric Raymond
Like their bullying practices, their "not invented here" mindset. The penchant for putting competitors out of business through sleazy licencing practices. I could go on...
I have to disagree with you. This press release was polite in tone, but stated the exact (IMO) concerns of the Linux Community.
/. flame away, this allows us to show alittle foresight. This memo shows us as having the ability to think ahead and respond politely --not just wait and scream after the fact.
Sometimes it's good to be pre-emptive. Rather than wait for M$ to make some sham release, then watch
I think ESR is in the right on this one.
IMHO documenting their API and proprietary fileformats and make them freely available would be enough.
Nope. Their API is already documented, but the documentation is frequently wrong -- not least because of all the bugs and whatnot. File format documentation might be nice, but BFD. It's not life-and-death. You can already get docs on that stuff anyway; you just have to agree to an absurdly restrictive EULA.
Even if the documentation were as good as software documentation can reasonably be (and assuming that they, as a corporate entity, are capable of producing documentation of that quality, which I doubt), that still wouldn't get us very far. The problems here involve things like breaking standards and whatnot, and those problems would not be addressed by documenting the damage after the fact.
Microsoft would die as Netscape did.
What kind of hysterical gibberish is that?
Netscape was killed by the fact that every product they sold was imitated and given away for free by a company which makes its money on other products. The Mozilla thing gained them a lot of respect and good press, cost them nothing, and could very well have pulled their chestnuts out of the fire if they hadn't already been too far down a bonehead proprietary development path. Read Zawinsky's resignation rant. Talk to some people who develop software for a living. Notwithstanding the fact that the browser was no longer generating revenue directly, it was a very valuable thing for them to have. A significantly better browser would have done them a world of good, and the Mozilla approach was their best way to get one.
I find it a bit of a nasty push for a letter from
OSI to start expressing how they think the DOJ
would react to something MS does. I'm sure that
the DOJ can speak for itself, and will when needed. OSI putting itself on the same line as DOJ is this letter to MS seems to me a bit of a
dangerous position to take. The letter seems to
be quite reasonable in trying to reason with MS on the concept of Open Source, and then suddenly such a slam in MS' face (be it deserved or not)... If I were dealing with this from the MS side, I'd happily disregard this entire letter for just that and carry on. You just don't send a fairly nice letter and then suddenly put in a threat like that. I'm quite disappointed that OSI has shown such behaviour.
NOT!
This won't happen.
Microsoft, if they ever do go Open Source, will doubtlessly come up with MSPL (Microsoft Public License) which will only allow you to work with other software within the MSPL. I would lay money down that the MSPL would be more restrictive than free licenses like the GPL and therefore you could not incorporate MSPL code into Linux due to incompatible licensing.
This is the one big fat hitch with Open Source that makes it SO attractive to corporate entities and less attractive to actual programmers. You don't see corporate entities embracing the GPL because the GPL would make their code FREE and allow us to incorporate their code directly into Linux or even competing products under the GPL! If Netscape had used the GPL, don't you think that KDE and Gnome would have taken a bunch of code from it already to improve their own rendering engines?
As a community, we should insist on nothing short of free software. Anything else only further fragments our community.
That's the most concise description of what I feel is wrong with the free software world to date. The concept of lenient source licenses is far, far, far, far larger than anyone's community, or (even worse) their (perceived) "tribe". ESR is no worse than just about everyone else in the free software world in that respect, unfortunately.
Either it is ok by the "open source" definition to release partial, incomplete software with extreme restrictions, or it isn't. By raising the bar just because this time it is Microsoft diminishes OSI's reputation.
More likely, it's because they observed the extremely negative reaction to the APSL, and learned. Even if ESR's interpretation of the APSL is correct, in that termination isn't a problem, the fact that lots of people thought it was possible is a problem.
So now they will insist on more clearly-worded licenses, which is a good thing. IMHO, the GPL is itself too complex a license, and only succeeds because it has a lot of history behind it. Newcomers with no history and potentially dubious motives can't expect to write licenses with coomplexity equal to or greater than the GPL and see many people start hacking their code.
(For my own part, I use an XFree-style license for free code I write, because I don't want to spend more effort interpreting the license than interpreting the code.)
about freedom, software, communities and openness without notifying you, seeking your permission, asking your approval and without caring one damn about what you think. We are free from you, your attitudes and your definitions and don't you ever forget it.
Just in case you are wondering, what you are describing (albiet Macintosh not Windows) is virtually identical to Apple's current OS strategy. Of course they are using NetBSD (god knows why they aren't using Linux instead) and running a Mac API (they call them "boxes") over top, so that the average user never sees a command line, but the really cool people can always open up and dig into a Linux Console. Mac ease of use + NetBSD stability/robustness.
1) Will the Microsoft Open Source License be compatible with Wine's X/BSD style license?
2) Will future Microsoft OS development be done in the open fishbowl?
Without 1), the source is only good for documentation. Without 2), Microsoft apps will always have the advantage of early access to new OS features.
doug.
ridgway@winehq.com
Say M$ does release some code, think about their motivation. What if it all becomes a huge distraction from other current useful efforts? What if their intention is just to slow us down?
As others have noted above, their pr machine has
hurt more viable software projects in the past.
What would be the real opportunity for us to have
windoze ocde within the opportunity cost equation?
"Be careful out there!"
All these OSI clowns have ever done is try to tell us about how cool they are and how important it is for them to approve of and certify some kind of process that they are masters of. They are masters of bators, and that about covers it.
Bators are, of course, little germs that cause self delusion, megalomania and delusions of grandeur.
dont ever expect microsoft to do The Right Thing. If it is ever released, it will be some obscure highly restrictive license...i for one am not going to bother to wait...we should make linux better, maybe?
if (...) goto i_cant_believe_i_am_using_goto;
...
...
...
i_cant_believe_i_am_using goto:
This is *NOT* a joke.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
Look, there are OS projects which are trying to make a clone of the WINxx line of products. One is Freedows Group
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
al gore is an alien...i have proof
I have a sneaking suspicion that digging through MS source code will be painful....or maybe we'll find that the real reason Windows is so bloody slow is that there's intentional pointless wait loops scattered througout that automatically get increased over time to make you want the newer version...wouldn't put it past them.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
I know from my personal experience that many members of the open-source community hate Microsoft with a mindless passion, and do not agree with some of the statements in this letter. There may even be some thoughtful community members who feel the same way.
I'm really rather surprised that Larry Wall, Guido van Rossum, and L. Peter Deutsch signed a statement claiming to speak for the open-source community.
We need to stop trying to represent the open-source community, or the free-software community, as a single cohesive unit that unanimously believes something or other. It's a big community, not a dictatorship, so unanimity is not to be found.
Eh? The OS/2 kernel and the WPS would be FAR more interesting things to peek into than anything NT has.
--
The idea here is that the people signing the letter are people who, by and large, believe in the same things that most of us in the 'open source community' do.
If you disagree, by all means, make it known. If you don't disagree, then you are being represented fairly!
On matters of software politics, I for one am quite content to have my voice represented by the likes of esr & larry.
--
It'd be great if Microsoft did release the source, but knowing them, they'd screw it up by putting it under a no-modifications license or something. It'll be interesting to see how this whole thing progresses.
Rumor has it that at least Win 3.1 (maybe other versions too) had a routine called icantbelieveiusedagoto, and of course it had a goto statement in it.
Posted by stodge:
:P
But why would MS do something like that, which will obviously benefit Linux more than it will Windows? Linux is after all a competitor to Windows. But that depends on whom you ask inside MS...
True, these guys have contributed a lot to the community and therefor earnt a lot of respect. But they can never speak for the whole community. They are not are leaders, they are people who we respect and we let them be our spokesmen. They shouldn't claim that their opinions are the same as the opinion of the whole community. If the community agrees with what they're saying, they will get our support, but they shouldn't take it for granted.
Please alter my pants as fashion dictates.
"Response to Microsoft from the Open Source Community"
What? No individual or group of individuals can speak for a community, least of all for one as diverse as ours. We couldn't elect representatives even if we wanted to - who would draw up the electoral register? That anyone would so blithely claim to speak with our voice is disturbing. Indeed, many have expressed the hope that Microsoft *doesn't* open its source to seal the doom of their bad designs, and certainly the welcome they would receive if they tried to join us would be uncertain to say the least.
This is the worst sign yet that OSI have decided, despite denials, to appoint themselves our leaders. I really hope they change direction on this soon.
--
Xenu loves you!
It's a little late to change the Open Source definition (unfortunately). If MS complies (as Apple and Troll Tech. did) even technically, they'll be able to use the trademark.
The reason for the letter is purely PR (which is OK, as far as I'm concerned). ESR is concerned that MS will release bits of Windows as Open Source and then gloat loudly that it didn't do anything for their consumers and therefore Open Source is a failure.
By making a statement like this at the outset, they're hoping to head MS off at the pass.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
It occurred to me last night that a source release with a tricky license could be a BIG problem. In the event that a source release happens, I would pay particular attention to be sure the license allows use of the API in other projects.
I can see a scenario where MS takes the Wine project to court and says 'You'll notice that the license CLEARLY states on page 123 paragraph 72 section 12 in the .0005 point italic font that the source release does not constitute permission to implement the windows API in any competing product. Blah Blah Blah.
1) This is plain wrong. Please learn about copyright law, and especially how it differs from trade secrets, before spreading that kind of misunderstandings.
2) Wine is under a BSD-like license (without the advertising clause), which means it can be mixed with any other Open Source(TM) code. Also QPL and ASPL. The result will no longer be under a BSD'ish license, but under the more restrictive Open Source(TM) license.
Even releasing incomplete parts of MS Windows as Open Source could be useful to the Wine project.
Your claim is wrong on two accounts.
1) Copyright doesn't prevent you from looking at publicated source not owned by you, when creating your own programs. You can just not copy the source outright. Maybe you were thinking of information that is "trade secret".
2) If the code is Open Source, Wine can copy, modify and distribute it. That freedom is part of the Open Source(TM) specification. Maybe you were thinking of the scenario where Microsoft made the code available under some non-Open Source(TM) compliant license.
Maybe OSI learned something from the APSL release? Being able to learn is not the same as having "a double standard".
Actually, I didn't see this as a dig at anything besides telling Microsoft if they're going to do it, don't release some 1/10th of the way finished code that doesn't work and is poorly designed, and then say 'Open Source Failed Us'.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Which is exactly why any Windows open-source licence must be drafted meticulously, to make such a betrayal impossible; nothing else will assuage the (justified) fears of open-source developers and win their confidence.
In my opinion, that won't happen. If some visionary at Microsoft decides to open the Windows code, the armies of lawyers and executives indoctrinated in the One Microsoft Way and the ideology of control will put the brakes on it enough to ensure its stillbirth.
If Microsoft fully open-source Windows (which I believe is unlikely), it'd be possible to port parts of it to run on top of Linux, or merge it with a forked version of WINE.
It'd probably require a lot of tidying up to prune back the spaghetti tying subroutines in the GDI and application levels to the kernel/drivers/bare metal, but it should be possible.
Note that the Windows API is, for better or worse, obnoxiously popular, and has lots of applications running on it. Therefore, were Windows truly open, someone would surely port it to Linux, or to a Mach microkernel or something similar.
However, if there is anything to inspire the least bit of distrust, such as a termination clause or any restrictions or controls over releases of the code, it will be all for naught; developers are not likely to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt.
Both of you have done great things for the community, and it's laudable to have differing points of view. But the bickering and personal attacks don't seem to be very helpful.
To quote Tim May about some flame-fest on cypherpunks, you two should just have sex and get it over with.
LILO boot: linux init=/usr/bin/emacs
I think you're missing the difference in depth of the situation.
Navigator/Communicator is an Internet application that runs on top of Windows. I believe it only has 1/2 the browser market share.
Windows is everywhere. It is a monopoly on the corporate and consumer desktop.
As a developer, you would simply have more to gain by contributing toward the OS that nearly everyone uses as opposed to a web browser that only 1/2 of those who work on the Internet use.
I'm on the side of the skeptics who question just how far Microsoft would Open Source Windows, but to theorize that Netscape's poor showing (although is 30 developers really "poor"?) is a basis for determining the number developers who would work on Windows doesn't follow. The two products are magnitudes of differences apart.
I just think that they shouldn't represent them as being "from the Open Source community"
Why not? They are as much members of the "open source community" as any one else. I respect those folks, and I respect the calm and rational tone of their letter.
It's very hard to trust micro$oft's motives after watching them backstab business partner after business partner. Why should we expect them to treat the open source community any differently than they did the Java community?
If micro$oft does go thru with with their proposal to open source windows, I fully expect them to blind side the open source community within a year, year and a half.
I'm sure you'll correct me if I get one wrong.
Well, since you invited... :)
MS contracted with Apple to develop the apps that are now known as MS office. Under contract, MS couldn't use the proprietary info given to them by Apple in a competing product (read OS). MS gained a great deal of knowledge about windowing environments and put that knowledge to use in their windows product. Apple was furious but MS had found a loophole in the contract and exploited it.
Apple had nothing to do with Microsoft Office. Excel and Word were Windows rewrites of Microsoft's own Multiplan and (surprise) Word, respectively.
Apple did sue Microsoft over the Windows 3.0 interface, which was the first (relatively) usable one. Nobody would mistake the Windows 1.x and 2.x UI for a Mac. Apple lost the case, essentially on the grounds that the judge didn't believe anyone would mistake the 3.x UI for a Mac, either. Once you get beyond the basic concepts of windows, icons and pointing devices, there simply wasn't much similar--for instance, Windows managed "program groups," not real directories, and file manipulation required File Manager.
Before Windows 1.0 there was a product called GEOS (IIRC). GEOS worked, Windows didn't. MS created a Smoke and Mirrors demo of Windows. It was a single application that gave the appearance of several applications running simultaneously under a Windows environment. It looked real slick during the press demo, and MS said just wait till we get all the kinks worked out and it'll be better than GEOS. They didn't even have a product. The public took the bait and waited for the product instead of buynig a working GEOS product. Microsoft took the trust of the press/public and exploited it.
This is, well, wrong. GEOS was a graphic interface which predated Windows, all right--on the Commodore 64/128. The PC version was called GeoWorks, and it was a complete rewrite, very slick and efficient, a Motif-like look (but configurable) and able to run on an XT at (for the time) blinding speed--faster than a 386 running Windows 3.1. But the fact was that there were 386s running Windows 3.1 at the time: GeoWorks wasn't released until well after Windows had taken off. The company's idea was to make something like Windows that could run on "lower end" PCs that Windows either couldn't function on or couldn't function on well.
Unfortunately, Windows had taken off by that time. GeoWorks got rave reviews and sold reasonably well for a while, but as people upgraded to faster 386s and beyond, they wanted the hundreds of Windows applications available to them, not the dozens--maybe--of GeoWorks apps.
GeoWorks mutated into "GeoWorks Ensemble," a complete baby Office-like app with GeoWorks, until it went off the market. GeoWorks, the company, then sold their PC software line to New Deal, which sold a revamped version of it (and may still). GeoWorks then brought back the GEOS name for the embedded systems market, and it's technically competing with WinCE. You do see it in some PDAs, and also in the Nokia 9000.
why not? i'm developping IO driver under unix for a realtime application (under QNX), i use goto and setjmp/lonjmp as well, it's faster sometimes to use goto instead of letting the code wasting his time where you know it'll do nothing except spend precious time :)
--
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
They use a win32 porting kit called MainWin from MainSoft. This porting kit is not available for Linux, (at this time) hence the lack of a Linux
IE version. Besides, why in the world would you want to use a badly ported version of IE anyway?
I doubt it'd do much good - Windows is such a monolithic beast to begin with. If they put less of it in the core OS, it might help... Oh yeah. Nevermind. The government already took a shot at that part a few years ago...
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
As for L. Peter Deutsch being prominant in the open-source community, his main product is Alladin Ghostscript, which is not open-source, as no money can exchange hands for it. GNU Ghostscript is merely a 1-2 year old version of Alladin Ghostscript released under the GPL. While I appreciate Ghostscript, I don't count him as a prominant member of the open souce community.
I think, too, that Microsoft knows full well how they treat the rest of the industry (with contempt and distrust), and I'm sure they know how much of the industry, especially the OSS community, views them (the same way). You are exactly correct that people expect nothing but 'empty demonstrations and half-measures' from Microsoft, and I'm sure that Microsoft is aware of that fact. They basically invented the concept of vapourware, and practice it often!
As far as having respect for Microsoft, I don't see that we need to. They have been treating the industry with nothing but disrespect for years now. Should we not treat them with the same disrespect? The Golden Rule, indeed!
I don't think it's really important whether or not gotos are used, but whether or not they're used correctly.
Microsoft could always release their code contained in OS/2. It would end any excuses IBM could have about releasing Warp as Open Source and put IBM in the position of putting their money where their mouth is. It's not as if Microsoft is threatened by Warp anymore and this would also act as a sop to the DOJ.
Define "need". Are you saying that I need Apple or Microsoft's software? Hardly. Are you saying that free software needs media and commercial interests to succeed?
Sure, people can try to work with commercial interests, but when they do, they should speak for themselves. Not all of us agree with ESR about what makes free software successful and we don't want to be spoken for when it comes to these almost-opensource license things. Look at the names on that list - who better to be speaking?
This is a problem. I am generally turned off by both ESR and RMS. I think Bruce Perens has been making some good arguments lately, maybe he would be a good person to see in the press, but nobody should be the leader of this community. The idea is ridiculous.
A large chunk of people that come to free software do so because they want freedom, not just better software (I don't agree with those that feel that free software is just about a better design process, I feel it is about a feeling of ownership, too). Anyone that tries to speak for them is going to fail.
I agree completely. This is why I don't use the term Open Source (tm) anymore - I see it as the term to use if you want ESR/OSI speaking for you.
The subtext: "Think Different, don't do it the way Apple did..."
You have lots of representatives, unless you live in a cave: Congressmen, Senators, a Rapis^H^H^H^H^HPresident, a mayor.... If you're in school you have still others representing you. If you have a job, you are represented. Your parents represent(ed) you.
You aren't going to escape from representation, so you may as well accept it. It's part of living as part of a society. If you don't like what your representatives are saying, then you should fire up your mail client and let them know.
As to your particular claim that unanimity doesn't exist among open source folk: Duh. ESR, Larry Wall and the others are, I think, aware of the diversity of opinion within the community. This doesn't obviate the need for representation in certain circumstances.
By the way, there is absolutely nothing that prevents you from issuing your *own* "Open Letter" to Microsoft if you don't like this one. So if you don't like it - why not do something? You can even say that you speak only for yourself, if you are so afraid of representing others.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
too bad i dont have the spare time :(
-magister-
Seems to me Eric is proposing to require much more of Microsoft than he did of Apple when he blessed the APSL.
He decries any release of Windows source that "won't build into functioning, usable software" , but isn't that essentially what Apple did with the APSL? He also states that "a license that exposes source but denies outside developers full rights to modify, re-use and re-distribute without legal hindrance" would be a sham, but isn't that exactly what the APSL does?
This attitude of embracing anything a competetor of Microsoft's does, regardless of how bad an idea it really is, and then donning the holy robes of free software when dealing with Microsoft's proposal reeks of hypocrisy.
Either it is ok by the "open source" definition to release partial, incomplete software with extreme restrictions, or it isn't. By raising the bar just because this time it is Microsoft diminishes OSI's reputation.
Okay I use KDE and such stuff, but:
If MS opens up source and do not bodge up the licence, then we could take the GUI stuff and put it on a Linux OS. With some API playing All windows apps would run perfect and windows users would find it really easy to get a stable version of windows. They would not even know that Linux was underneath.
We get a really stable operating sytstem that 90% of the population use as we can always bring up a 'UNIX Command Prompt' or something and work like we did before.
Everyone gets the best of both worlds....
Projects such as KDE and GNOME would also need to adapt, ie become the new program standards for writing apps, as the windows app programming model is crap and KDE/GNOME programming models are really clean and enjoyable to program and use.
ON HP-UX With IE it's actually:
* *****
wmerh02t-206> du -s microsoft
64814 microsoft
bigger.
**************************************
Superstition is a word the ignorant use to describe their ignorance. -Sifu
I can't think of a single good thing that could come out of implying that Microsoft's source code sucks. If any one thing was going to make them forget this whole open source idea that was it.
When I saw that ESR had written a letter, I was hoping it was something to the effect of "We don't trust you one little bit, but if you act in good faith, we will accept you.". I think the letter properly conveys this tone. I'm pleased with ESR and company for having written it.
On the other hand, I would prefer that ESR say that he speaks for OSI, not the open source community. I aprreciate what he's doing, and I think we need a spokesperson, but I never asked him to speak for me. The best leaders I've seen lead from behind. They help people accomplish what the wanted to in the first place. Putting words in my mouth doesn't fall into that category.
A way it could've been handled is if he had said something about our general reaction, attempting to summarize in a shorthand way our chaotic and diverse opinions. I think this is what he was attempting to do, but the semantics of the letter imply otherwise.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Somehow, I didn't find myself worked up all over it. Like, who cares if Microsoft thinks Open Source is what it is, or if it's something else? I don't.
Despite MS's assurances that the weather is good, it's nice and sunny, and things just look rosy, MS is under siege from multiple sources, and they're simply losing their control of their monopoly, they know it, and they still haven't figured out what to do about it.
The whole concept of Open Source is just so alien to MS, that they simply don't know what to do about it, and are just trying the same embrace/extend/redefine/mutate approach, in a different venue.
Distributing Windows sources will simply mean that more and more developers will start to depend on Windows internals. And just like the "Java Community License" access to Windows sources, "open" or not, will likely prohibit developers from using information they can get from the sources for improving clones like Wine.
Furthermore, open sourcing Windows is not going to address the two areas where Linux really needs access: proprietary drivers and proprietary content formats. Those are usually offered by other companies and often mired in patents. Opening Windows sources won't help.
The best thing with Microsoft is to let them go on with whatever they are doing. If current open source efforts deliver more value (as I think they do), OSS will win more marketshare. We don't all need to take the same approach to software development. There is a diversity of needs that is best met by a diversity of approaches. There are people who actually like programming Windows and see nothing wrong with it. Why spoil their day? And if a single model really were superior to all others, we will also only find out if we try a diversity of models.
The letter is a call to arms for the OSS community as well as a treaty for M$ acceptance by the same.
ESR outlines what the OSS community should accept, and what it should reject, on principle.
Well written, to the point, and clear to both intended recipients. Kudos.
Now let's hope all involved get the message.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
I think MS will open source some of its code and I'd be willing to bet they open WinNT 4 up.
Why? Because it would take years to start serious modification and improvement at the source level for WinNT. In addition, Win2000 would be out (maybe) and would be established by the time end users saw quantifiable reasons for trusting and using OS'd versions of WinNT. Besides, during the startup curve for changes and comprehension, MS would be watching and seeing what can be done to improve their Win2000 product that is based, I think, on WinNT to begin with.
Given the number of bugs in M$ products,
claiming that their software is not of
GNU quality is not an offense, merely a
truthful statement. And besides, all
code can improve.
I do not see any offense in the letter.
It was short and to the point.
The only people that would work on this open-sourced windows would be people that are stuck with windows anyway and have a job to do. And it would be a difficult project to get up to speed on. Jwz mentioned that people took a couple weeks to get familiar with the mozilla codebase before they could really work on it - well this is windows we're talking about!!! Multiply all the mozilla numbers by at least 20!
:-)
Of course, this would all only matter if they do it just how the letter requested. If they don't, they might find themselves puzzling over why nobody is rushing to help them out.
I liked the letter. It respected the rights of ms while at the same time reminding them what it really means to call their project an open source one.
BTW, at least esr didn't call it Halloween VI
Vidi, Vici, Veni
It's important to make sure that people don't try to get a free ride with the open-source name. Ballmer tries to do that without knowing what open-source is. Al Gore knows even less. This letter gives Microsoft a fair warning in a polite way. It gives a nice, professional feeling of the open-source community.
I know from my personal experience that many members of the open-source community hate Microsoft with a mindless passion, and do not agree with some of the statements in this letter. There may even be some thoughtful community members who feel the same way.
The open source community is not about hating Microsoft. It's about cooperating and sharing code. It's supposed to be a nice playground for ideas. Good ones live while bad ones die. Now, if Microsoft wants to join, we have no right whatsoever to reject them. They have the right to offer their code and those who want to contribute will.
However, I bet that MS would screw it up like they usually do. Probably they'd release only a bit with a lot of marketing hype. They could maybe get some positive news articles but that'd be all they'd get because they'd not even expect to win more than that. They don't believe in open-source so they'll not make an effort big enough.
So if Microsoft does something, let's remain calm. Us fighting and rejecting them because they are Microsoft is not the way to go.
Yeah right. Remember when Intergraph raised all that hooplah over releasing their specs to the Voodoo Rush? Only after Daryll Strauss figured it out? But they still have yet to release the 3D specs? Have fun, boys and girls.
Skevin
"You're fired."
"What? But I work eight hours and sleep eight hours like anyone else!"
"Not when they're they same eight hours."
"Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
I hate to have to break it to you, but this is not the subtext. How can I be sure? Two simple reasons:
1) This letter is from ESR and others. ESR is the one who has been working with Apple on their Open Sourcing, both on the license and on other issues. He's been the one supporting Apple in their move, and hailing it as a good step, against the vocal objections of RMS, Bruce Perens, and others. So I doubt that he'd be writing a letter to Microsoft condemning Apple's approach.
2) Apple did release a runnable OS. What they didn't include was some of the higher level stuff, the GUI, etc. But you can download Darwin, compile it, and run it. You can even write your own GUI for it (as people have been talking about since it was released), and have a very nice OS. So the points he's making to Microsoft are points that were covered with Apple. I wouldn't be surprised if he's able to enumerate those points precisely because he went through them with Apple, and knows what some sticking points might be. However, he managed to get them past Apple, so that we got a good release from them.
-Snibor Eoj
You're speaking just for yourself when you say that, right?-) --PSRC
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
Hell No!
I can't *beleive* the amount of people who think that MS releasing their source would be a Good Thing (tm).
First of all, you realize that Open Source (tm) is a registered trademark. MS using it is a violation of it's trademark.
Second, all MS releasing their source code would do, is remove the significance of Open Source and the Linux Community all together. Of course, this would just go to prove that MS monopolistic habits are attempting to run over into a market Billy can't touch.
I am APPALLED seeing the Microsoft petitions and letters from leading Linux people supporting this action! I am AMAZED to see that petition on LJ's website. What the hell are you guys thinking?
What benefit would MS releasing their source code have on the Open Source Community? Do you think that movement would get us more respected? No. Do you think that movement would make MS succumb to us, saying that we were right? FUCK no. All Billy would do is say he saved the Open Source community by releasing his code, saying otherwise we'd have failed. monopolistic asshole.
MS can make every attempt at trying to fix their code. By releasing theirs, our developers are just going to laugh their butts off at it, and then, be so preturbed as seeing broken code, they'll fix it, just to say they did. MS wins, we lose.
Let MS do whatever the hell they want. As long as we don't openly support these decisions, they'll lose. WTF after this battle, when we're prevailing, do we want to help them?
-Kara Pritchard
kara@luci.org
Linux Users of Central Illinois
The GPL is not really all that difficult to understand. In the spirit of public service, it explains what it does and what the ramifications are *very* clearly.
The GPL is kind of long, but is written to be as simple as possible while still achieving its goal of causing software to be really free. I've read the whole thing and understood every line, and I'm definitely no lawyer.
It may not belong there, but it is definitely not a threat.
Eric is referring to the idea that MS might only be releasing any source at all in order to help themselves out in their little antitrust case, saying that a half-assed release will not accomplish anything to that end.
It is definitely not a threat.
I would wholeheartedly agree with their letter if it weren't for the APSL. "half-measures" seam to be ok except when coming from M$.
And I can't escape the feeling that if Steve Balmer perceived ESR as a *leader* he would have talked to him first (as others did) and maybe, just maybe, the tone of the letter would have been slightly different.
Because M$ are only expressing intentions after all. Apple's license is light years away from anything GNU-ish but was praised nevertheless.
After all in what way are Apple better than M$ except that they are worse businessmen (and women)? 'You do not even manufacture cases, Redmondites, let alone transparent ones!'
I find it odd that people are saying "Windows code is terrible" and it "bloat" when no-one has read it (They haven't released it yet!). I agree we can infer from the general performance of almost any flavour of Windows that something is wrong in there, but until we can see inside we will never know exactly what it is.
And don't you find the idea of looking in there intriguing? You say Windows is poorly written and designed (which it may well be) but you won't know until you look. It is just as likely that SOME of the code is very well written, designed and even documented. How would it not be useful to take some of these good parts of Windows and add them to Linux and some of the best features of Linux and add them to Windows? Wouldn't everybody win then? What kind of operating system might evolve from that?
Remember, one of MS greatest problems is that they have many disparate development teams writing code that doesn't always have the same goals in mind, and the directions these teams are travelling sometimes bring them into collision with each other. This could be an opportunity to fix some things properly because we WANT to fix them, with no time pressure, not because they HAVE to be cobbled together in order to get the product to market.
Personally, i find this a very exciting prospect which will make the quality of all software in general better.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
I'm not sure I understand your objections. MS DOES write raunchy code, and I think it's a good idea to tell them so in no uncertain terms. They are a company who wants to join a community (so they say), so what does that community owe THEM? The community didn't go say "Hey, Microsoft, we think it'd be really cool if you joined us". I'd bet my bottom dollar that if MS's legal Sword of Damocles was affixed more firmly to the ceiling, they wouldn't even CONSIDER this move.
"Magic pixie dust" is a direct quote from somebody who had a front row seat for the still-birth of a major corporation's foray into the open source community. It's very appropriate to include it here.
MS deserves no respect. For one, they're a corporation. THEY owe US respect (that is, if they want our money). For another, they've never done anything WORTHY of respect. They've been poor citizens of the software community since their inception. I don't know if it's a smart move for MS to attempt Open Source licensing...it's a path fraught with peril. However, if executed correctly, it could be the first decent thing that MS has EVER done.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Define "need". Are you saying that I need Apple or Microsoft's software? Hardly. Are you saying that free software needs media and commercial interests to succeed?
No, I'm saying that dealing with the media and commmercial interests is a fact of life. Both of these parties are going to warp the view of something we hold dear. I think we need people who can articulate well and who are well respected to speak up and try and make sure that doesn't happen.
I never said we need someone to be a leader of the community. You can like or dislike ESR, RMS and whomever else you want.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
Sure they can speak for the community - they just did.
Apparently, all the moderators agree with people like you, though, becuase they are spending their points scoring up two-line posts. lovely.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
if you want.
But in the real world, you need a voice speaking on your behalf. The media and commerical interests are facts of life.
Look at the names on that list - who better to be speaking?
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
Ok, I would be the first to agree that:
:)
:( - oh well, Java
a) MS code would most likely suck
b) MS code might be undocumented/hard to follow
c) Bill Gates is a band-wagon-riding-weenie
... but, would it not be MUCH easier to code
device drivers if we had some starting point?
Even if their drivers (the ones on the install cd)
suck, at least we'd be able to say, "ah, I see...
that register controls this...".
That would be good for really alien (read spiffy/
new/unusual) hardware, and gasp - we could even write drivers for Blozedems.
AH, but even if they did release the code,
they'd probably have to take out lots of driver
code they dont have license to open. (like
Netscape had to take out Java
sucks anyway.)
Ok. I'm done spitting.
Just look at the size of Windows. Just look at what happened to mozilla. Just look at some of the causes jwz pointed to explain that failure. Who is going to go through the code and try to make sense of it. Just look at all the cruft that's been layered through the years. Will it really matter?
I don't understand why is there all this thing about Microsoft. I think the main step was taken by Netscape. Microsoft will be just another one entering the boat (If they will really do it). So I think there shouldn't even have been any letter. Let them go their way, and we will go ours. If they want to do something good, let them contribute to WINE.
IMHO documenting their API and proprietary fileformats and make them freely available would
be enough.
An Open source Windows - what a joke. I guess they missed April's fools day. Microsoft would die as Netscape did.
Even if MS does make Windows code open source, in a reasonable manner (unlikely), how many developers are going to write code and give it back to MS. According to Jamie Zawinski's resignation letter, only about 30 people contributed code to Mozilla. Considering that among developers, there are probably more people willing to help Netscape than MS, how many people would give MS source code for free?
Focus. A single focused individual can do more than a group of opposing and intermittent people. This is not a democracy. If it was, the same things would be said. The same misjudgments, the same bickering, and the same confusion. Furthermore, the opensource community would enter an area it doesn't want to be in: politics.
The best way to get through to MS other than the open letter, would be a massive e-mail writing campain. But then you get a number of Dear Mega$oft: letters from people who don't know how to write respectfully enough, even to get Microsoft to do such a big thing such as open up the source.
One other thing. ESR is smart. He knows Microsoft would never open up the source to such an extent. It is just ploy to deter Microsoft from openning their source halfway and propietary and getting positive press for it. I can see it now, ZDNet: Microsoft goes GPL! Linux bottoms out.
It makes me wonder what next, if anything, ESR has planned. Let's say MS does open some of their source. The press goes wild. But somewhere in each of the numerous articles is a quote from ESR: "The Open source Institute warned Microsoft about a halfway effort on their part. Developers have no use for such a weak Open Source initiative. Linux is the best alternetive for Developers" or something thereof. Of course ESR is a better speaking than I am and could find something more modivating to say.
You are quite justified in asking me, "So, you trust him that much?" Yes. And so should everyone else. Not because he represents the community but because he is the closest thing we got.
--
I will always have two computers, one runs only Windows (which i will use the open-souced windows on, when it is available). And the other is my "everyday" computer, it runs Linux. The Linux PC has always been more reliable, and it never crashed once (untill i tried GNOME). I use it all the time. If i need to use software that only runs on windows, i boot up my windows machine, otherwise everything is done under linux.
I was quite a windows fan, and i eagerly paid for Windows 95. Thats where things went downhill, Windows 98 was crap, why should i pay $100, for something i don't need? Because Microsoft says so? NO! So i bought a Linux PC, it was great.
Anyway, If MS does Opensource Windows, I won't "switch", i never did switch from windows, i never will have to switch back.
BTW, (now i'm WAY off topic> did any of you notice that almost all of the really good colleges out there, Suggest that the students buy Either Macs or Unix? I just saw the college edition of TIME magazine. Interesting to note the fact that Windows* isn't very popular in colleges.
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
I believe that this letter was somewhat unconstructive for several reasons. First, I believe that it directly insulted Microsoft by accusing it of producing bad and non-functional code. Although I personally believe that to be true, approaching Microsoft with that attitude only makes it get defensive and not want to cooperate. It puts it off the open-source community and encourages it's desire to undermine us even further.
Secondly, using terms like 'magic pixie dust' trivialize Microsoft's potentially serious move before they have a chance to show their intentions.
'Empty demonstrations and half-measures' are what we are accustomed to seeing from Microsoft. Nonetheless, I still feel it is wrong to approach Microsoft with this confrontational attitude if we truly want to encourage them to listen to the voice of the Open Source community.
"...if Microsoft is sincere in wishing to join the open-source community, and does the right things in the right spirit, we will welcome it."
If the Open Source wishes Microsoft to do things in the right spirit, it needs to do things in the right spirit itself. I find it hypocritical of the Open Source people to attack Microsoft before it has actually made a move, and then ask it to have a cooperative spirit.
I was always taught the Golden Rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If we want Microsoft to treat us with respect, we must treat them with respect (even if it turns our stomach).
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration/d
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/char
The open letter writers were right to express
suspicion of whether a meaningful chunk of code
would ever get released by MS. There's at least
one precedent for this and it isn't encouraging.
More than a year ago MS released what they represented
as the complete code base for Microsoft Research's
NT implementation of IPv6. I follow the main
places on the Net where people who write protocol
drivers for MS OSes post. Some of them (us), at least,
are fairly gabby, complaining about the paucity of information available from Microsoft and exchanging hard-won knowledge. But if any of the NDIS protocol posters have mentioned the IPv6 code, it just sailed right by me. <brutal candor>I haven't read the IPv6 code myself.</brutal candor>
Sorry, I forgot there are ads on the Web; I use Lynx.
Why would it suck to go back to windows? I didn't leave it just to be cool and go with the newest trend. I left it because it wasn't reliable or stable. If after going open-source it solved those issues (among many others), I'd go back. If Linux starts to get the software base that winblows has, then I'd probably stay with it (linux). But I get tired of having to search forever and fiddle with software just to get it to work. Granted I'm a better computer person afterward (i.e. smarter and a little more experienced), but I'm also a little lazy. :)
---- The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. -Thomas Jefferson
Last year when Netscape announced Mozilla, the question was asked to Microsoft as to when they would release the source code to Windows. The reply was that Windows was already "open", that anyone can write to the API's, yeah right!
...and start thinking about it as "the OS that most consumer products run on". If the source for that OS were fully released, it would certainly (IMHO) be worthwhile to go through and fix it.
This may, in fact, be the only way to fight the inevitability of Linux. Linux can be hard to use and doesn't have that much commercial software - but it is open and free, guarenteeing that it will survive until it DOES have ease-of-use and commercial software.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has better ease of use and more commercial software than Linux, but the complexity of the OS combined with proprietary source code ensure that its popularity has peaked. If Microsoft continues their practices, they will lose market share to Linux as soon as Linux overcomes its problems. Without market share for their OS, Microsoft will eventually be reduced to writing Linux programs to survive.
But if Microsoft concedes the OS market and releases the full source to Windows, they still win - they may no longer be making money off their OS, but their OS is still the one most people use, guarenteeing them an applications market.
Thanks. I was afraid that I was the only person who felt that mentioning the trial in the letter might not have been appropriate. The statement that such actions will not satisfy the Justice Department seems to make look like they are speaking for the Justice Department.
The scary truth is that a half-arsed "opening" of Windows source code just MIGHT satisfy the JD. We're talking about lawyers here. They don't know the difference between useful and useless code any better than I know the Sherman Antitrust Act.
It's also a little like a shot below the belt -- like bringing up someone's ugly personal problem in a board meeting in order to win an argument.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
ESR hates Microsoft with a more mindless passion than anyone I know. See his Gates-Hitler crap, the whole Robin Hood thing, Halloween commentary, Jargon file, etc. Sure, one of these alone could be interpreted as humor, but not all of them together.
He knows they're not serious about releasing parts of their OS under an Open Source (tm) license and he's poking at them for claiming to consider it.
What MS means by 'open source' is open source, not Open Source (tm), and certainly not Free software.
Of course, if MS releases their OS under the GPL, I'll gladly stick my foot in my mouth.
1) By looking at the source code of windows, and incorporating knowledge gained from it, Wine becomes a derivative work. The only way around this is a clean-room reimplementation, which is what Wine is currently doing. If any of the developers see windows source code, they are said to be 'tainted' and can't work on the clean side of the project, i.e., they can't write any code for it.
2) Windows being Open Source (tm) does not imply its license is compatible with the Wine license. ASPL and QPL are Open Source (tm) (or at least ESR says so), but their source isn't beneficial to other projects as their licenses are incompatible with everything else in existence.
Actually, MS releasing their source code makes it *much* more difficult for the Wine people to work. If the Wine people so much as glance at the windows source, and such glancing can be 'proved' then bye-bye Wine.
I have a sneaking suspicion that digging through MS source code will be painful....or maybe we'll find that the real reason Windows is so bloody slow is that there's intentional pointless wait loops scattered througout that automatically get increased over time to make you want the newer version...wouldn't put it past them.
Like anything in life... You have a bit of good, a bit of bad.
Unfortunately, by the time we find bugs, they've morphed into "features" -- we can't fix them; we can only provide workarounds and document them. This is because if we changed the code to fix the bug, it'd break 1000's of applications.
Them's the breaks.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Even if MS opens there code, how many developers are going to flock to work on it? Yeah, people will be excited at first and people that must deal with Windows will be glad that they can try to fix things, but is there going to be a lot of development done? I doubt it and I bet MS knows this. My Question: Is MS going to use this as a chance to say that "an open source project will fail because no decent developer would work for free"?
I interpreted "We in the open-source community" to mean "the undersigned".
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
You lead, OSI will follow.
I hardly think it unreasonable for me to tell someone that they are welcome to join the free software community, but that they must free their software first. Or are you saying that some in the free software community are ingracious slobs?
That's not my experience -- this community is a meritocracy which welcomes anyone who can pay the price of entrance.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
...when I got to the four little words "and the Justice department". Why, oh why, did they have to mention the Justice Department? It changed the whole tone from a well-reasoned *conditional* welcome, to an empty threat. As representatives of the OS community, the signors of the letter have neither the legal knowledge to make that claim, nor the power to carry out.
Otherwise, I think its a well concieved letter. Someone with some percieved authority definitly needed to tell them to put up or shut up.
> how many developers are going to flock to work on it?
After spending a few weeks trying to figure out, why your *wonderful product* fails on some installation of Wimpdos and works on most other, and you have not the luxury to tell the customer either to get lost or a real operation system, you really start to appreciate havin the source of those darn DLLs.
And once you fixed one of them, just to get your support people off your back, whether M$ may profit from it is not really of interest any more. If the fix works for others too, fine.
> but is there going to be a lot of development done?
There are people out there today, who try to fix the wimpy GUI with VB programs, so finding people to work on the operation system itself will not be the problem. At least for small areas.
> Is MS going to use this as a chance to say that "an open source project
> will fail because no decent developer would work for free"?
Once the source is distributed, 'undistributing' it will be a major task for M$, considering that if you start scratching at the surface of wimpdos, you'll quickly find code that dates from 1987 and earlier.
I think any company, whatever their motiviation, does a good thing by opening source for our inspection. Sure, maybe we won't have all the freedom we'd like, maybe the sources will be encumbered by restrictive licenses, maybe they'll be incomplete, but that's a heck of a lot better than the alternative, i.e. trying to develop for an absolutely opaque and buggy black box. If I can occasionally peek into the black box, lift its lid and shine a light on its inner workings, then my burden as a developer will be eased.
I don't think we can initially expect the likes of corporate America to jump into the open source ocean with both feet. They're gonna wade in slowly... Test the waters. But these baby steps are steps in the right direction. I applaud ESR and company for their efforts. I didn't ask 'em to represent me, but nevertheless I feel they're helping me and the community as a whole.
One viagra in the morning before work; I just know I'm gonna be screwed
Just think of how much it would suck to go back to windows... If it goes open source, it might actually have some chance of being a decent OS. What then? Are we obligated by the same reasons to return to windows that we left it for *nix in the first place? MS sucks, whether they release their code or not. Granted, their code will get better if they release it-- but do we REALLY want that? It's only going to benefit MS and their evil empire... I say, screw em, ignore their ploys to [get their code improved by the community free of charge] improve their code free of charge.
In any case, it's up to M$ to figure out what to do. If they mess up, too bad for them. If they don't, well, read the response: "we will welcome it", which obviously is the only possible polite answer the authors could provide to that scenario, so it could just as well have been left unsaid. Which also holds for the other part of the response. Especially since it can be read to imply that the design of M$ is a mess. That may very well be so, but there is no way to convince any pro-M$ (or even neutral) reader of this without proof. So the response ends up looking like a wild attack on M$ that is being made for no other reason than that M$ might be looking into knocking down one the people's favourite anti-M$ arguments: that it has to be bad because it is not open. This is of no use.
So why was this response needed? Or at least, why did some people think so? Think about it! I've given my answer already somewhere in the previous paragraph.
Note that this is not an anti-ESR or anti-whoever posting. In fact, I tend to be somewhat pro-ESR. In any case, it is definitely not intended to be a pro-M$ posting.
--
Linux user since early January 1992.
I agree that their letter is a well thought out response to Microsoft's declarations and it's an all-round Good Thing that OSI are writing them. I just think that they shouldn't represent them as being "from the Open Source community".
--
Xenu loves you!
I was urging OSI not to represent letters as "from the Open Source community" since a community can't send letters. If your reply addresses that then I'm failing to get some part of the content.
Thinking about it, this reflects a comment Bruce Perens made: industry want to see Open Source as a corporation with ESR as CEO, and OSI, seeing how corporate support will further all our interests (and it will) are tempted to try and meet these expectations. However, since we can't succeed it's a mistake to try.
--
Xenu loves you!
They speak for themselves, as I do. No-one can speak for the community. I respect them too, I just think they should be careful not to misrepresent themselves.
--
Xenu loves you!
Why don't we wait for Microsoft to start responding or at least acknowledging receipt of these "open letters". These things are getting tossed around the repair shops and tech support pools but never getting a glance from managers.
Larry Wall, ESR, Guido, et al have contributed VAST AMOUNTS open source code to the community. They are well known *precisely* for that reason, though ESR is better well known because of his excellent essay-writing ability.
If you contribute code or documentation to this community you too will become well known and help further the cause more than any baffle-gabble on Slashdot will do.
If you don't do the above, you're just a voice in the herd, and there really isn't a reason to listen to you over the others.
-Stu
As an example, there are people out there in the "Java" community who really are happy about Sun's licence for Jini so they can ensure it is continually refined. The "pay if you play" model may have potential.
The slashdot community does not represent "every" interest. Some people just want to see better quality infrastructure & don't care if the license is restrictive.
-Stu
the problem with that approach is that there is just chaos with regards to "community opinions", and nothing will be accomplished.
having respected members of the community speak on our behalf is an imperfect, but acceptable solution, especially when dealing with the business community. the alternative, anarchy, is not an option.
-Stu
I know from my personal experience that many members of the open-source community hate Microsoft with a mindless passion, and do not agree with some of the statements in this letter. There may even be some thoughtful community members who feel the same way.
I'm really rather surprised that Larry Wall, Guido van Rossum, and L. Peter Deutsch signed a statement claiming to speak for the open-source community.
We need to stop trying to represent the open-source community, or the free-software community, as a single cohesive unit that unanimously believes something or other. It's a big community, not a dictatorship, so unanimity is not to be found.
(I originally posted this as Anonymous Coward due to a Slashdot bug.)
We've gotten where we are without political "leaders".
The kind of leadership that free software calls for is technical leadership --- that exemplified by Linus and Alan's work on the kernel, or Larry Wall's on Perl.
If free software achieves world domination, it will be because of the leadership of technical leaders like Linus and Alan --- making free software into the best damn code that's ever been written --- and not from the proclamations and denouncements emitted by politicians.
I'm a system administrator. It is not because of a political proclamation that I choose to use Debian GNU/Linux on the systems I run. It's because of the code. It's because the software is good. No amount of politicking will make a system stabler, a kernel faster, or a GUI friendlier.
I liked the letter.. It was very polite, and respected Microsoft's right, while at the same time, saying 'Please don't do this as a farse'. I'm very impressed..
;-P
So why didn't Al Gore sign it? I mean, he invented the internet, and now, apperently the Open Source movement..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
I'm reminded of a proverb, the origins of which I cannot recall (I think it might be American Indian):
A young man is about to take his boat across the lake, and he hears a viper whispering to him.
So the young man loads the viper up in the boat and takes him with him. The young man rows across the lake, and gets to the other side. He picks the viper up to unload him, and the snake bites him.
Wil
--
Internet Meta-Resources:
Wil
wiki
...richie - It is a good day to code.
I'd hope that in the future my own Open Letters would be considered more fairly by Eric. That's all I want.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Isn't it ironic that Eric is now using the same Open Letter strategy that he criticized me for when I used it on Apple? Wouldn't it be funny if I said something like You should have known better. You've interfered with my private negociations with Microsoft and have made all of this much more difficult :-)
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Let me get something clear: I don't expect Microsoft to ever do anything more than say "You can order most of our Windows 2000 source code for $200 as long as you sign this agreement not to redistribute it or any patches to it except to us, not to work on any other operating system or Windows API related projects, and to give us your eternal soul." That kind of "new type of open source" would have little or no effect on Windows itself - except it would make life much easier for warez dudez who want to make trojan software and hackers looking for remote exploits.
What I'm worried about is that some clueless but well-meaning judge might decide that the best way to crack down on Microsoft would be to whip out the "eminent domain" stick and take away Windows by making it true open source. That would be OK for free software in general, but for the state of computing it would be a horrible step backward.
I don't just want free software, I want free, good software. We don't need hackers poring over Windows 2000 in some vain attempt to make remote display of apps stable and scalable, or trying to fix whatever hideous kludges they've got preventing them from throwing away DOS finally.
For those people who say that "we haven't seen the source code, how do we know it sucks", we've got enough good evidence to go on. Their repeated attempts and repeated failures to get rid of the 16 bit code and DOS core in Win9x is one example. The travesties of the Win16 API and WINS is another. The fact that they've had a half-baked 32-bit port of NT to the Alpha instead of writing 64-bit clean code in the first place is a third. How about the WinNuke/Teardrop/Syndrop/Newtear/etc series of attacks on the Windows IP code, where the patches took weeks or months to be released, and where half of the new attacks were just minor changes (e.g. using UDP instead of TCP) on the "patched" attacks?
I'm told that NT has some good kernel design decisions, and that it's just the wacky video drivers and the mess of the Win32 API weighing it down... but I'm told this by people who still claim that NT is a "microkernel" architecture.
I'm also personally impressed with OLE, which I think is one example of something Microsoft did themselves, did without too much prior art (All I can think of is ToolTalk in the Unix world - apologies given and corrections requested if I'm missing some Mac history here), and did well... but the underlying implementation isn't of value here (and is probably inferior to CORBA if they're just making it network transparent now), the API (which we already have and which Gnome is practically cloning AFAIK) is.
In short, it's evident that with the exception of accelerated Wine development, an open source Windows would be fairly valueless.
What an open source Windows would do is something I'd rather not see happen: insure the immortality of Windows. More than ensuring "World Domination", open source software is ensuring that free Unix will never die... and for both obvious and personal reasons I hope Windows does die. In the next 5-10 years, please. The idea of Windows dying may have seemed ridiculous a couple years ago, but with Linux pulling out the rug from under NT server and threatening the desktop, with the Godzilla movie of Windows 2000 fast receding, with 64 bit NT development headed by the guy responsibile for Windows 3.1 (which scarred me emotionally), and with even Apple clawing their way back out of the grave...
One of the best things about Unix is that, incompatible vendor extensions aside, all the Unices are built around a set of common, well-designed APIs that give the word "standard" real meaning. I'd hate to see Windows become a standard as well, not because of any design features but because people got to make a lot of cheap copies.
Why are people in the open source movement rushing to embrace MS? Doesn't the history of this company send up red flags. Searching my memory here are a few things that should cause Open-Source supporters to pause. I'm sure you'll correct me if I get one wrong.
MS contracted with Apple to develop the apps that are now known as MS office. Under contract, MS couldn't use the proprietary info given to them by Apple in a competing product (read OS). MS gained a great deal of knowledge about windowing environments and put that knowledge to use in their windows product. Apple was furious but MS had found a loophole in the contract and exploited it.
Before Windows 1.0 there was a product called GEOS (IIRC). GEOS worked, Windows didn't. MS created a Smoke and Mirrors demo of Windows. It was a single application that gave the appearance of several applications running simultaneously under a Windows environment. It looked real slick during the press demo, and MS said just wait till we get all the kinks worked out and it'll be better than GEOS. They didn't even have a product. The public took the bait and waited for the product instead of buynig a working GEOS product. Microsoft took the trust of the press/public and exploited it.
Windows95, via win32, was seen as a boon to application developers before it was released. Trade magazines saw increased ad sales for the competing products in their future. Now, where is the compitition and diverse applications people were expecting. Gone. MS used the win32 api as a weapon. The Win3.11 upgrade did.....? Sure it broke the win32 compatibility of OS/2 but what else? MS took their position as maintainer of the win32 API and exploited it.
How many times in the past have they done this? Can anyone think of a single case in the past where MS hasn't exploited their business partners or customers to further their own obsession with wealth and power. I cannot.
Why would it be any different this time? Does ESR and crew have a legal team that write a contract better than Apple did? Can their philosophies about software development (freedom and choice) even allow them to think along the same lines as MS(exploitation and control)?
We don't need them. Yet they need us. We are winning the hearts and mindshare of the public and press and they *NEED* that to survive. If we accept them into our community, the only thing we'll end up with is a knife in our backs.
That's an interesting thought. If Microsoft is insisting that IE is a part of the operating system, and this letter has its intended effect, we'd wind up with the source to IE. Imagine if Internet Explorer could be made completely standards compliant, and ported to... oh, jeez, I gotta stop or I'll wet my pants.
It would be great to get all that source, but it seems that Visual C++/Basic would have to be thrown in for it to be effective. COM/DCOM is so complex to write that people only use the wizards to implement components. If they kept Visual Studio, they could continue to control their core technologies by controlling the development tools.
It does seem like a good move for Microsoft. Linux will continue to put pricing pressure on the OS market, and they still have a pretty lucrative office suite.
The people whose names are at the bottom of that letter are people that people in our community (and outside) respect.
Your opinion of whether Micorosft should release their source code aside, the fact is that anyone can release anything under any license they choose.
The message that is being sent here is an excellent one:
If you want to relase open source, do it right or don't expect to any kind of welcome into our community.
I thought it was well written and calm, explaining a rational point of view. I'm glad that ESR and the others have taken this step in an open letter.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
i don't get it, with that kind of thinking, nobody can speak for the community, cause if these people (ESR, Larry Wall, etc.. who did much more FOR this community than the majority of the people whinning here) can't talk for us, nobody can.
I suspect that's what a whole bunch of our group want. But let me tell you this: It won't happen, we need leaders, if we want Linux and OSS to dominate the world (Linus words). We should consider ourselves lucky to have these great leaders speaking for us, and you should thank them for their effort, cause they are working for you. Even if u don't agree with everything said or happening , at least respect the effort. If you don't respect it DO SOMETHING!(whinning is not doing).
"But please don't claim to speak for everyone who uses the software"
Please don't forget they made some of the software.
my 2 cents
Personally, I agree with the OSI's response -- an open-sourced Windows would be a boon to the entire computing community. Windows could become a better OS by adopting methods used in various open sourced operating systems, and despite all the hell that's about to rain down on me, Linux would be a better and more interoperable OS than it is today. I am a Linux fan at heart, but please remember that majority of the OS's and applications are Win32 based. Windows would benefit from the OS improvements that it could gain, and the traditional open source operating systems could become better through more applications. The key word of the day is inter-operablilty.
Just my $.02
-Chris
I believe that this letter was somewhat unconstructive for several reasons. First, I believe that it directly insulted Microsoft by accusing it of producing bad and non-functional code. Although I personally believe that to be true, approaching Microsoft with that attitude only makes it get defensive and not want to cooperate. It puts it off the open-source community and encourages it's desire to undermine us even further.
Secondly, using terms like 'magic pixie dust' trivialize Microsoft's potentially serious move before they have a chance to show their intentions.
'Empty demonstrations and half-measures' are what we are accustomed to seeing from Microsoft. Nonetheless, I still feel it is wrong to approach Microsoft with this confrontational attitude if we truly want to encourage them to listen to the voice of the Open Source community.
"...if Microsoft is sincere in wishing to join the open-source community, and does the right things in the right spirit, we will welcome it."
If the Open Source wishes Microsoft to do things in the right spirit, it needs to do things in the right spirit itself. I find it hypocritical of the Open Source people to attack Microsoft before it has actually made a move, and then ask it to have a cooperative spirit.
I was always taught the Golden Rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If we want Microsoft to treat us with respect, we must treat them with respect (even if it turns our stomach).
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration/d
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/char
The message the writers are sending is a good warning not only to Micros~1, but to any other closed source vendor. It should help to battle some of the coming FUD. I see the same problem infecting Sun, Apple and Al Gore. They believe that if they call their code open and post the source that 1000s of talented developers will magically show up to work on the code and then hand it back to them -- no strings attached. The corps (and Al) have taken the quote and changed it to, "Don't think of it as free software, but free labor." (of course, the worst part is they forgot the beer 8*)
To herd people (or cats) you've got to give them a reason to go in a particular direction. For this community, that reason is ALWAYS to scratch an itch. What itches us in MS code? The fact that it doesn't integrate with other OSs as well as we'd like. If MS opens the source what will be the first thing 'fixed'? All the sh** that makes it break OS/2, Samba, etc., or 'decommoditizes' protocols.
So the letter writers are correct. MS shouldn't expect to open their code under a ridiculous 'give-it-all-back-to-me' license and have us finish their dirty work for them. But this is exactly what MS will do, and then they'll FUD to high-heaven when their tactics don't improve their code (see, we released the code as open source and in a year only got two contributions and they were both ridiculous. All they did was move our data structures back under the 512M memory limit so that OS/2's Win32 implementation isn't broken anymore. This whole open-source thing is a crock, and if you use it for your business you'll never get updates.)
Watch for the coming FUD!!
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
"Here's the source code to Windows 2000, in its entirety, no restrictions, no charges, nothing hidden."
"In order to compile it, you need Visual Studio 2000, which only costs $995. You may not copy, redistribute, or tinker with Visual Studio 2000 in any way, shape, or form or we will cut off your favorite body part."
"Gotcha!"
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Of course we shouldn't take Microsoft/Ballmer seriously on this point. They might be trying to horn in on the "Open Source," this might be part of a "everyone really wants Windows" campaign; who knows?
What one would expect is that the mainstream press picks up the "pixie dust/non-functional product" slam for what it is: senseless posturing. They'll eat this up..."Linux geeks lambaste Gore, Gates"
ESR was a more effective agent for change when he was working in the background, influencing journalists by educating them. This press release garbage is counterproductive.
"Response to Microsoft from the Open Source Community"
What? No individual or group of individuals can speak for a community, least of all for one as diverse as ours. We couldn't elect representatives even if we wanted to - who would draw up the electoral register? That anyone would so blithely claim to speak with our voice is disturbing. Indeed, many have expressed the hope that Microsoft *doesn't* open its source to seal the doom of their bad designs, and certainly the welcome they would receive if they tried to join us would be uncertain to say the least.
This is the worst sign yet that OSI have decided, despite denials, to appoint themselves our leaders. I really hope they change direction on this soon.
--
Xenu loves you!
I agree wholeheartedly. While I usually find myself agreeing with what ESR says in re FS/OSS, and I have rarely found anything to object to in the works of the other signators, I find it very troublesome that they would consent to the ascription of their views to "the Open Source Community". ESR and Larry Wall are geniuses; the others at least have their hearts in the right place; but none of them have the authority to speak for us all, because nobody can have that authority.
How can you "speak for" a bazaar? How can you "speak for" a "community" where the only thing we really have in common is the code? It's a nonsensical proposition, but one that's bound to confuse the press and piss people off. It reminds me of animal-rights activists who claim to speak for deer, or trees, or mink --- as good as their intentions may be, they're hallucinating their authority.
To ESR --- as much as we may agree with you most of the time, you do not speak for "the Open Source Community". Nobody, no matter how wizardly, no matter how eloquent, can do that --- because the group so labeled is neither homogenous nor even entirely self-identified as such. There are people whom you don't like and don't agree with, and who don't like or agree with you, who are yet users and writers of free software just as legitimately as you are.
Speak, if you will, for yourself or for groups which actually are capable of appointing you to speak for them. Speak for OSI. But please don't claim to speak for everyone who uses the software; all it does is mislead the media, agitate the worried to paranoia, and the paranoids to flaming.
With the Win2000 release being pushed back further and further, with reports of 30 some-odd million lines of new code, and a public track record of delays it is aparent that more delays are all but inevitable for the "next generation" windows.
Rather than continually admitting the trouble and being subjected to the fallout of unmet expectations, Ms can announce a "redirection" that introduces "source code" would buy MS time and provide and excuse for further delay of the Win200x release. (They can point to OpenMozilla's delays as an example).
By releasing "source code" in what will surely be a more limiting license than Apple's, they can get the benefits of being "open source" (it's hip, it's in and it's geeky), as well as stall the movement to the "alternative" open source system, Linux by corporate america. Business will get all the benefits of Windows support and applications, as well as the coolness of "open source", why move to the unsupported, application (re: Office) deprived Linux?
In the same way Win95 was used to check the short-lived momentum of OS/2 (recall that it was billed as a true preemptive multitasker, when it was really DOS/Win4 in fancy dress), the "open" Win200x can be used in an attempt to hinder broad Linux acceptance.
Can it work like it did against IBM? I personally don't think so.
Just my $.02
Also, throughout the 80s, there was no press or public excitment over MS Windows. Most people thought it was a joke, although some did use a runtime version to use Excel (but more people used a runtime GEM desktop to run Ventura Publisher.)
Everyone in those days thought OS/2 was the GUI PC OS of the future. That is, until Microsoft started giving away millions of copies of Windows (only hook - add WIN to the AUTOEXEC.BAT). PC Users essentially staged a revolt, demanding a GUI interface over the DOS standards of WP and 123, and that's pretty much how we got to where we are today.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
BTW, the letter that I signed didn't have that headline. I presume to describe the community, to outline the price of admission to the community, and even warn about the reception Microsoft might get, but not to speak *for* the Open Source community.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
To be blunt: just why do you hate Microsoft? Would you still hate them if they wrote good code? If Linux Distro X takes over 90% of the market, will you feel obligated to hate them because they took over 90% of the market? I hate being forced (yes, I will say it, forced) to pay good money to get brain-damaged software. I hate business models that make their money off of disservice to the customer. I despise the ability of a company to ignore the needs of the customer base and so improve their profits. Are you afraid of Windows becoming a decent OS? I would love it! Give me a copy of Windows that works and works well, and I will gladly pay for it. Give me a truly Open Source Windows (that is, one with OSI-compliant licensing), and I will work with people to improve it so that it stays up, remove the bloat, and plain old make a respectable OS out of it. If that is impossible, screw it. If Microsoft puts out an Apple-style license, they can watch the Open Source movement pass them by. If they put out an OSI-compliant license, there may be some benefit. We might be able to improve it. If they take on an open-source mindset as a company, then they stand a chance at becoming the greatest respectable software house in our time. Microsoft may be making a careful gesture of reform and repentence. Then again, they may be trying to sucker us again. I suggest that we remain cautiously optimistic.
--The basis of all love is respect