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.
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