Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft redefines Open Source
DaBuzz sent us a fascinating
little article where you can read that
Microsoft is exempt from
trademark law. Talks about
Open Source having a variety of meanings, and how MSs definition
differs from Linux.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
So Microsoft is saying here, because they keep a stranglehold on the Windows source tree, that's why applications will run. Ingenious, why didn't we think of that?
*-Someone Else's Problem
Yeah. Why not? They said trademark laws don't apply to them! ;)
The endless stream of drivel emanating from Talking Moon is worth the price of
admission!
It's not enough that they constantly make statements that are utterly silly, but to
witness how different spokespersons constantly contra^H^H^H^H^H^Hexplain
one-another is just hilarious.
That's the way trademarks work. It's why Xerox fights so hard to protect it's company name from becoming a generic term for a photocopy. If you do not actively act to protect you trademark, it becomes public domain. If OSI does not sue, MS wins.
them having an user edited website would atleast help reduce the '404 not found errors' they often have
Perhapse the Linux/GNU community should leave the
term Open Source and adopt "Open Development". There's no way in hell Microsoft could call their code "Open Development" with their current and proposed models. It would also end a lot of these so-called "Open Source" releases which are basically closed to all developers.
I.E. GNU and Mozilla are "Open Development" since anyone can download the code and develop using it and contribute towards the project. GNU is the ultimate example of "Open Development" since nobody can take that right away.
Mentioned in the article is a " supercomputer" of NT machines (hey!! stop those chuckles). There are 72 dual PII Compaq Proliants in this thing (Didn't see any clock speeds or amount of RAM or type of network, other than their use of ServerNet software). It can sort 1TB in under 50 minutes. They state that the previous record (for a shared mem. super. rather than a cluster) was 2.5 hours. Hmmm... dare I say... CHALLENGE!!!).
Phenym
Ok, wise guy, I know of a shrink wrapped product that not only doesn't work right out of the box on a significant portion of windows98 machines, but also tends to BREAK a whole bunch of other 3rd party apps AND some critical parts of windows itself AND it's from the same company that makes the OS.
It's called "Office '97".
The reason (the ONLY reason) that Microsoft is so far ahead of us on the desktop/userfriendly front is that we're spending the time to do it right. Microsoft often implements things that aren't well supported by the state of the art in computer science, and it usually bites them in the ass several years later. Conversely, we tend to go slow (as far as large, archetecture-scale design issues goes), feeling our way and leaving things open ended. This way, we have a cleaner result, and we don't end up coding ourselves into a corner we can never escape from.
If you want a good example, how about the windows DLL problem versus versioned shared libs in Linux.
(microsoft) has been able to avoid the fragmentation that has occurred in the Unix marketplace as software and hardware developers push "different variants" of the Unix operating system (OS), for instance, Muth added, because the company has remained the sole arbiter of what constitutes the Windows platform.
Ahem... Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 95 r B, Windows 98, Windows 98 SE, Windows 2000, Windows NT, Windows CE, Windows For Workgroups.
There is nothing stopping Microsoft from saying things like "we will open our source", or "we are releasing source". But directly associating their PROPOSAL to release SOME parts of Windows under a resstrictive license and then calling that "Open Source" is misleading and should be stopped. It wouldn't be so bad if they were talking about washing machines, but THEY AREN'T!
What's worse, they go on to say that there "is more than one definition of Open Source", and that alone is obviously an "embrace and extend" strategy if I ever heard one. You may want to pull your head out of the sand before it's too late to avoid the oncoming traffic.
How about Peek-A-Boo Source?
Bait-'n-Switch Source?
(Your comment here...)
People should call GNU tools and the Linux kernel free software, not open source software.
Why call it something else, when it's freedom people who wrote the tools wanted initially?
Especially the piss-poor example M$ gives you
- The check is in the mail.
- I won't come in your mouth
- "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!"
- Our "open source" is different than your "open source", but we are still "open source"
Maybe Muth should check the meaning of "open source" at http://www.opensource.org/osd.htmlYour comments aren't worth the electrons used to paint them on my screen. Some instructions for you:
1. Lose the Ego.
2. Stop posting.
You may follow these in any order you wish. The proper order is left as an excercise for the reader.
a) yes (by a large margin)
b) a very large assumption indeed.
I work quite a bit with the MS folks (like I work with the UNIX folks). And one thing I have learned is that MS adapts.
However, I also have learned that within MS there are factions and rarely take the battle to the outside world. But here we have a battle. Balmer says OpenSource "We be cool" and the Windows 2000 dude says, no way.
What do I think? I think if Steve Blamer put his foot down, it would be OpenSource. From seeing his action he does whatever it takes to make Windows everywhere. Steve Balmer and MS wants market share. And if it is OpenSource they will do it. The other guy I would tend to ignore.
But it is interesting to see that LINUX is actually making them very worried...
Christian Gross
Then perhaps you could tell me if Word 2000 will actually let me type a character at the end of a hundred page document on a Pentium 200, go have a cup of coffee, and have the character I typed display before I get back? Or maybe Microsoft hasn't noticed this problem (it's been around as long as Word for Windows) since its 200 MB bloatware office package mostly gets used by secretaries to type two page letters.
Perhaps I'm bitter.
--Ian Crosby
icrosby@youvegotmail.net
Ed Muth is a flaming fucknut.
Of course, you shouldn't interpret that without having a clear understanding of how I define "flaming fucknut".
The term "flaming fucknut" has a variety of meanings, and my definition differs from the one used by conventional wisdom. (*cough cough*)
"It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is..."
Hmmmmmm... touchy about his employer, arrogant, *and* condescending. How charming. Of course I read the manual, and that's how I worked around it until I dumped Word. The point is, I shouldn't have to. This would not have persisted through several releases and the better part of a decade if Word were open source.
--Ian Crosby
icrosby@youvegotmail.net
When Gates himself denies it, then you will know it is TRUE.
You can't fight the wind.
Open Source is like the wind.
Not only that, but you can run unix programs from before linux was even thought of, as well as quite a few dos and win programs..
You know, I rarely hear Linux users or developers utter the word "workaround." Does M$ have this word trademarked so that other people can't use it without their permission? Or is it that other developers don't tolerate the concept of a workaround and instead fix the problem?
The oldest I can find is:
this
for a trademark. ESR doesn't even assert a trademark. Many of us realized a long time ago that he's not playing with a full deck. He's not even an amateur. Microsoft has already ripped his position to shreds. ESR never had a position. He's a clown - on a good day.
Gimme a break!!! MS going open source will be like Bill Clinton driving his cock into Monica's mouth while NOT having sex. They'll reinvent the term, and then live up to it to the Nth degree.
This is all stroke and mirrors. No different than Bill CLinton or the Gore campaign. Just don't inhale guys!
Have fun reading the code. All 20 billion lines of it, that is.
Security holes? Security holes? Security holes??? They have enough as it is. In fact, if the source is released maybe we'll get a chance at actually fixing them.
I do like the term. But you realize, that things like XFree86 could be classed as non-open development -- because they don't release betas.
fdisk c:
Install RedHat
Download Corel WP 7
Have a ball.. You want a talking paperclip that'll give you handy instructions? Take some blotter acid.
"Broken Source"
;-)
"Abandoned Source"
actually, many projects on freshmeat.net qualify for these new brands...
They produce low quality, unreliable software at high prices.
Microsoft are no longer relevant to the future of the software industry.
Take it out of the box.
I've seen just about all these behaviors on fresh hardware. Take NTOP4 for example:
- Open carton.
- Remove fresh PowerEdge server from carton.
- Install NT. Pray that the AIC78xx install bug doesn't bite you in the ass.
- Configure NT and networking. Pray that it doesn't hose the WAN's browse lists. (The gods are against you -- your browse lists *will* be hosed and network users *will* complain.) If it does, stand around for a couple of hours waiting for the cascading elections to quiet down.
- Install RAS if necessary. Don't test it because OEM NT4 is bundled with pre-SP3 RAS which is hideously broken out of the box (hey, there's another one to add to the list!)
- Install NTSP4. Pray that machine still boots afterwards. (Luck is often on your side with this one as long as there's no strange hardware in the box.) If not, return to Step 3.
- Install IE 4.01 SP1. Pray that the machine is stable afterwards, which is maybe a 50/50 shot. If not, go back to Step 3.
- Attempt to install NTOP4. It *will* fail, but you have to try first.
- Use REMVIIS.CMD script received from MS Platinum Support for when NTOP install dies, which is frequently.
- Attempt to install NTOP4. I give two out of three for this one. Should it fail, go back a step. Rinse, Repeat.
- Replicate IIS metabase from so-called known good production servers. Hope it doesn't have hideous corruption.
- Install ActiveState Perl. Fiddle with IIS config endlessly to make
.pl CGI work properly. (Hey, look! Another piece of software that doesn't work out of the box! I'm chalking 'em up!) - Replicate production web data from any old server. Hope that ROBOCOPY doesn't have Yet Another Fit trying to connect to the remote share.
- Fire up a browser, test the site locally. Oops! Look! An IE4 JavaScript Error! Time to reinstall IE and hope it goes away! (Maybe one in three; otherwise just live with the broken JavaScript -- hell, it's a server, who's gonna browse with it anyways, right?)
- Try testing some non-JavaScript ASP pages. Ponder the incomprehensibility that the first ASP page that a fresh server loads will lock up an inetinfo thread.
- Run outside, warm up hands and body, test server from a workstation without the Mysteriously Appearing JavaScript Problem.
If you get this far, you have what could be considered a working production web server. It's broken, but it's about as good as NT gets.I welcome you to debate, but I have been through this process with three fresh boxes recently. Dell says "well, that's NT for you." Microsoft says, "Hmmm... let's try reinstalling." The root cause of difficulty remains eternally unknown.
Hell, just the other day I brought up a little mini-server for testing, a fresh, unused PC straight from the vendor. It went amazingly smoothly, except for the two NT install attempts (the first just went off into space starting the network) and the three NTOP install attempts (the first failing to register DLLs correctly, and the second resulting in a broken MTX).
I run this stuff every day. It does this in the real world. There isn't a large-scale LAN admin, webmaster, or (and I shudder to think what these poor bastards go through) Exchange admin using NT that doesn't have these problems. They exist and they are a part of everyday existance.
Windows brokenness extends into Microsoft and third party apps. Want me to enumerate what building a baseline Win9x workstation is like? It's even longer and more frustrating!
God damn it, can't mircosoft yuppies get this yet? Who cares if the source is open source. If the source sucks, it sucks! Open ness does not change the code. If they hope that geeks will contribute to their OS, they should think again. I compare Microsoft OSes with Soviet Union. Open sourcing would be like pereistroika. Look at Russia now? Economy poor and stagnant, certainly new reforms add some hope, but they don't change situtation. The only way to rescue NT and Windows 9* from it's current position as a slow and insecure OS is to rewrite it totally.
I prefer liquid myself.
Woah, I have to disagree here. MS produces shitty operating systems but they have exceedingly bright people working for them. I have no doubt that the reasons for their poor software lay in management not in their engineers. I would be very interested to see what could be produced if those minds were freed from the shackles of the MS marketing department. This of course will never happen but that is another thread.
Wait for Xtux.
It'll be ready in 2 weeks, I promise!
Dave Lawrence
philaw@camtech.net.au
Ooookkkk... :)
:), :)
;)
Move that high voltage transformer just a few feet
further from the NT box
This is nuts, we have a program at school where we work on the district's computers (saves money
I must have installed Win9x 20+ times this year and only had about one installation fail. And this is on different hardware configurations, none of them really "state of the art", there was this one computer though that would randomly crash alot... Made fun of it all year.
Also have installed NT4 w/ SP4 and option pack, used as an internet proxy. Installed Perfectly the first time. STILL WORKS TOO.
What I'm trying to say here is that I dont think MS products are as bad as most people say/beleive.
On my Win98 computer Netscape is about the only program that crashes, and POVRay sometimes.
Not to say that I dont like linux, I think its great (and the price is just right
The idea that "Linux has good coders working on it, MS has shit coders" holds no water whatsoever. It's just a vague attempt at deluding yourselves to make you feel smart.
Actually, the problem as I understand it is that MS coders are more inbread, being that they all seem to work under the same philosophy. Biggest problems I have seen in them are inconsistences in their APIs, for example splitting up drawing functions in to 2 modules, DirectDraw, and Direct3D, while OpenGL is just one API for one job, and is flexible enough to handle just about all aspects a programmer could need, with room for more in extensions for those who wish to experiment. In MFC they have the document view archtecture but they limit what can be a view, a view is stuck inside of a windows client area instead of letting a child window be a view, it would be nice to attach other things as views like a floating dialog box for example. The other problem is with their aparent attitude about standards, they are very proprietary and controling as if their standards are the only or best standards, the truth of the matter is no matter how crappy their standards are they and no one else will know what a good API is, if it wasn't for OpenGL for example Direct3D would have gone in some other weird direction that MS would have taken the whole industry through. The only benefits to having a proprietary standard is the speed at which something gets adopted because it is backed by MS for example, and since it is backed the majority will go the MS route instead of picking and choosing what they examine to be the best standard, but like I said this is reguardless to the quality of the standard itself, sure the standard gets adopted quickly and change quickly, but the cost is quality, and no inovation (mimicing mostly). OpenGL was argueably done perfect the first time it was created, when Direct3D was created it was horrible and even MS was trying to promote using Retained Mode for game developement over using Imediate mode, it was horrible in usability, programmer friendlyness, and was even technicaly proven to be bad for performance. MS when confronted by the "Open letter to MS" for support of OpenGL from top game developers of that time, they skipped DX4 and later released DX5 with a D3D that was very similar to OpenGL supporting drawing primitives, with the release of DX6 again closer to OpenGL supporting geometry tranformations. OpenGL has changed very little in over many years, D3D went through a lot of changes in a short period of time but the changes only did one thing, turn D3D into a proprietary version of OpenGL, using MSs clumbsy style of standards, I almost gave up programming altogether after using MSs standards, if it were not for OpenGL. All I can say is if D3D is MSs proprietary OpenGL, where are they going to go today, especially since they have almost nothing left to copy, nothing inovative to steal?
It's an interesting thing to think about. If the company you work for is doing unethical things and you are supporting the company by working for it how responsible are you for the end result.
I don't work for M$ and never would. I find that a daily shower and peaceful contemplative moment suffice to cleanse myself (and my karma) of the stench that accumulates from using m$ products. What kind of pennance would you have to pay if you actually worked for them?
Here's my story.
Unpack Dell.
Install Office professional.
reboot
Install Office SP1.
reboot
run access to see if it still works.
If it says you do not have a licence then install that patch
If it fails on passwork install that patch
reboot
copy a umpteen digit licence number
install office service pack 2
reboot
check to see if everything still works if so go to next step if not wipe the preinstalled win98 and reinstall from scratch.
install ie4.01
reboot
Patch ie
reboot
etc.. etc..
Just the other day I tried to install sql 6.5 on a server and refused to MS thinks it does not like my tape drive.
I installed it another machine. Then I upgraded the IE on the CLIENT and it refused to connect to the SQL server. I had to download a fix and patch the SQL server (oh yea a bunch of reboots too!) so much for mission critical databases. YUCK!
What I would like to know is, why say "The Death Of Critical Thinking on
I understand your upset about the MS bashing, but generalizing everyone here is very lame minded, if you were strong minded you would not have come to this point of stereo typing everyone else.
hmmmm Hollywood has supposedly bright people working there too, yet the airwaves and movie theaters are filled with crap. I don't doubt Microsoft has some awesome coders working for it, but that doesn't explain why they keep putting out shit. And then charging your ass for a fix for software they made you pay for in the first place.
Installed and reinstalled windows NT4.0 5 times on this one box, 2 times for an Alpha box, I had to run the back up disk countless times as well as install the service packs after that, installed 98 on one box was screwed up because of the lack of good support from MS for the video card (AN S3 for crying out loud!!!!!) had to reinstall a clean 95 instead (clean as in erasing all the programs that were transfered from the original 95 to 98, most of which was screwed up by the 98 upgrade any way), all of these were done for many varying reasons, Internet Exploder 4.0 being one, and even causing additional anoying glitches. I have to admit one of those problems had to do with a stupid cheap maxtor harddrive crashing after transfering over the network, but the rest were mostly because of lame software, after this I HATE INSTALLING SOFTWARE and yet saddly enough every one I know always ends up asking me to help them, and I usually solve the problem.
THE BIGGEST FUCKING PROBLEM OF ALL IS THE FUCKING LIEING, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN OR NEVER WILL BE (at least not for many many years with companies like MS) USER FRIENDLY SOFTWARE. You want to know what user friendly software IS!!!!! Its SOFTWARE THAT IS MORE INTELEGENT THEN THE USER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We are seeing the beginning of Microsoft's attempt to market their product as Open Source. Many people are up in arms about this but it is not without precedence and has in some form been anticipated by OSI. Apple and SUN have already recognized the value in the "Open Source" brand and have to some extent or other sought to mold it's meaning to suit their purposes. "Open Source" is just too Open for the big players.
The latest attempt by Microsoft represent a very clear effort to undermine the value and meaning of the Open Source label. This phrase is recognized by the community as having a specific meaning and that has percolated throughout the industry as a "comfort factor" when using software. It isn't surprising that a large corporation would seek to use this label even if it lacked the prerequisites to do so. The obvious goal would be to redefine this term where possible and create your own definition in those markets which were unaware of the original definition.
Fortunately this very eventuality has been anticipated by a few visionaries who trademarked the Open Source label. A huge investment of time and effort has gone in to promote this brand, and it is now being threatened by the very mindset it was conceived to counter.
It is therefore imperative that OSI act now to protect this Trademark before it is lost. You cannot allow large corporations to put into common usage different interpretations associated with a powerful brand like Open Source. A lot is at stake here. There are several options but the most effective from a practical and a publicity standpoint would be a court restraining order to prevent Microsoft and it's executives from undermining the Open Source brand by introducing alternative definitions, or using the term to promote products which do not comply with the definitions outlined by OSI.
Microsoft statements in this article give clear grounds for such an order. It's time to act or wave the Open Source brand good-bye.
95 may be 'obsolete' but millions of people still use it and some prefer to use it over win 98. Also, speaking of fragmentation, what about that stupid 'osr2' release of WIN95 that you could only have if you bought your machine with it?
Linux geeks say Linux is a stable, secure OS and by comparison
Windose is unstable, insecure and bloated.
*FACT* - Most so-called stable Linux systems are servers
that don't even need a monitor or keyboard once configured.
Handle request, read file, transfer file.... ho hum....
Put Linux on the desktop in the hands of workers who need to
create things with computers and which system is more stable
and useful - Linux or Windose? Which system has the needed
AI (I know it's not real AI, but somewhat) to interact with a
human being and help him accomplish tasks other than serve
files and handle network requests - human tasks?
*FACT* - Linux desktop is extremely unstable. X locks frequently.
Applications have more bugs and crash more than MS apps.
True, this does not cause the whole system to crash or lock most
of the time but it does enough of the time to say that on balance
Linux + X crashes and locks more than Windose.
*FACT* - Linux has no internet tools for the consumer - only
for geeks. Windose has IE 5, the world's smoothest and most
verstaile browser. Linux has bloated, slow and buggy Netscape
and text mode Lynx and a slew of half -finished, buggy GPL
browsers and tools which seem to be abandoned before a
beta version is released! Yes, Linux has lots of good
internet apps which require programming skills, but can your
mother or girlfriend use them?
*FACT* - Linux libraries tend not to be backwards compatible
and break older apps. Linux development projects use unstable
branches of libraries, building on a foundation of sand. Look at
Gnome and Imlib. Every version of imagelib breaks Gtk apps
compiled with previous one, Gnome requires exactly this or that
verison of dozens of support libraries to have a chance of working
and then don't release the mouse button over an icon.
Motif, lesstif, forms, wxGTK (uses old, adandoned Gtk1.06).
What a mess! No wonder commercial unixes stick with tried
and true motif even if it is oppressively ugly!
*FACT* - Most linux distros don't support newer video cards
found on *average* consumer PC's these days, and don't
even use latest xfree86 version which supports a few more.
Linux full screen (svgalib) sucks, supports even fewer cards with
few full screen programs for those that do (games, demos, -
where are they). GGI - what cards does it support - same
as svgalib I bet. Windows has DirectX and DOS for games
from the old classics for DOS to the latest hits for DirectX.
Take your pick!
*FACT* More Slashdotters use Windows to access the Internet,
not Linux. Why ? Explanation simple. Linux "geeks" are too
stupid to get their modems and ppp working with LInux so dual-boot
to dose for needed stuff. Hight paying job as sysadmin does
not make one smart - smart people are those who use computer
to get things done and be creative, not make a religion of
the command line!
*FACT* Open source is unproven to produce a single major
app for the consumer with possible exception of Gimp. Where are
cad programs for architects and engineers, midi and digital audio
for serious musicians, bookeeping and accounting, educational
software, etc., etc., etc. Windows has these apps because MS
provided a good platform for productivity which is easy to use
and which software developers developed for to produce products
for *people*, not a hodge-podge of half-fimished and abandoned
projects that litter the Linux landscape. What's there for the
consumer here except a long walk back to the gas station?
*CONCLUSION* I think Ed Muth was being generous in acknowledging
that Open Source is an avenue with some merits, and in
pointing out that MS development is not so closed as free software
people claim. He was also reiterating that MS will employ a
variety of strategies as the situation demands to bring the best
possible products to the consumer. MS is not known for
closing doors and burning bridges, folks! I am sure that MS
would be willing to consider a cooperative agreement with any
startup open-source projects you may be involved with to
bring your endavours under the protective umbrella so that
you get the latest updates in case you fear your projects may
suffer from lack of exchange of ideas with the MS team.
Count your blessings that most of you can dual boot to good
old Dose to get you work done and to Linux to experiment
with the unproven. Maybe Linux will mature some day and
properly appreciate the consumer, but why should a hobby
OS like Linux want to do that?
Hey, it doesn't compile. Ship it and let 'em fix .... Linux Open Sores
it.
Netscape Navigator 4.08, cryptography version, Linux 2.2, libc5, runs for months without crashing. I usually restart it every few weeks, cause it's using >128M of memory though...
Nobody ever even registed the trademark. That makes it totally indefensible. There's no product or service to trademark in the first place. OSI doesn't have any legal STANDING to defend anything.
Yes, the next version of Encarta will probably claim that Bill Gates invented the term "Open Source".
From what I've heard, Encarta is Microsoft's attempt at revisionism. Or else it will be in the reprint of BG's newest book, just like all the stuff about the Internet was added to his previous book in later prints.
Ed Muth is irrelevant. He has no administrative say over Windows. I have no idea why he's the one who's always quoted. The quotes from Steve Ballmer and Brian Valentine are more indicative what sort of thinking is going on.
Your flame is just inaccurate.
I'll let your choice of title speak for itself.
Yes, I have some thoughts.
Even if GPL'd code was in Windows, it would be very difficult to force MS to publish code even if you could get access, and I don't see how you could. A statement from Ed about Open Source definitions is unrelated and irrelevant. On what basis would you ask for code disclosure? Even if all your wishes come true and you win, a court would decide on the course of action to be taken. That may not include publication of Windows source. It may include some financial penalty and force them to rewrite that portion but you can't always get what you want, and sometimes what you get is rather unsatisfying, even if you could afford the years of legal hastle. This is all a remote prospect and based purely on wishfull thinking.
Protecting the Open Source brand would be a lot easier than trying to stand toe to toe with MS lawyers on more complex issues. This is the priority, let's not get distracted.
MS has left themselves wide open on this one. We now need decisive action. The publicity from a successful and simple legal action which restrains Microsoft from abusing the phrase "Open Source" would be a good thing. It is also essential to protect the movement from abuse.
This is a key moment in OSI history. A historical turning point. In 2 years we'll look back and view this as one of the greatest or worst moments in OSI history, depending on whether they show teeth or not.
>Not only that, but you're talking complete and utter bullshit. A 20 line program (such as Hello World, perhaps?) takes up 54k.
Wrong. We have the same problem at our school. Even a 4 line program requires more space than a single floppy can provide! To get the thing to compile you have to tinker with 20 or so different settings to get the final project size down to an amazing several hundred kilobytes for our 4 line program. amazing piece of software you guys have got there.
They're actually trying to convinvce us that Microsoft apps work? I'm a network/system admin that has to use Winblows at work... I install it, it crashes -- yup looks like it's working fine to me!
PS - Hey J-man!
There was a complaint against one of microsoft's objections to real open source: microsoft's adherence to one controlled source tree and one standard QA process is not unique to their world. It does not in fact give them a more stable and consistent platform.
Hmmmm. Maybe, but meanwhile might I quote from Linux's High Availability HOW-TO (http://metalab.unc.edu/pub/Linux/ALPHA/linux-ha/
"Since we are talking about business critical systems, there is probably no way for customers to choose their Linux distribution of choice. Distributions are too different in stability and handling to allow for that. Major Linux distribution makers are invited to talk to us about what to do."
Someone should get their stories straight.
AC
I did in fact write that. The difference is that the bug in fact exists in Word, whereas I actually did read the manual. I stated an annoying fact about software I paid good money for. You assumed that I had made a stupid newbie mistake when I actually had a legitimated grievance. I may be peevish, but you are demonstrably arrogant and condescending. Witness the paperclip exchange. Doh!
As to why you are writing on this topic, could it be because you responded on my post to it? Or are you asking yourself rhetorically?
I assure you, typing at the end of 100 page outlines when I was in school brought my P-200 to its knees with Word 97, 95, and Word 6. Perhaps if you changed the paragraph style in your document to outline it would still happen. Or perhaps after the better part of a decade, you've actually fixed it.
In all honesty, I expect that there are quite a few very talented coders working for MS.
That's not the problem.
The problem is, in MS' corporate culture, the quality of the programs takes an extreme back seat to marketing concerns. You get to ride in the trunk, while the marketeers get the in-the-steering-wheel cell phone and the heated seats. Remember MS isn't selling software, they're selling an image of software.
High quality isn't strived for, or even prefered because it cost too much in time and dollars. High quality cuts into your bottom line. It's only important that the software is 'good enough'.
www.OpenSource.org
Not that I like M$, or Ed Muth, but who the hell are you people to criticize something that Linux doesn't even have yet?
For example, Muth made the statement about any shrink wrapped software running on any computer running Windows, and that it is due to a central hold on the Windows source tree. When you think about it, he is right. Can anyone tell me of a time a off the shelf product for Windows didn't work on Windows?? I can't. But I can tell any of you countless stories of how a rpm package may or may not run on any Linux installation. And we make fun of M$?? Deb and tar packages are no better.
Like I said, I am no M$ fan, but you have to give credit where credit is due.
This would be a good (albeit seedy) play if the roles were reversed i.e. if Open Source was the dominant trusted icon of desktop computing and MS as the upstart. The way things are now, I believe MS in unintentionally doing more good than harm.
By throwing around the term "Open Source" they're probably trying to regain developer interest and turn some Linux popularity wave in their direction. The backlash of this is that if the PHBs here MS saying "open source", all of a sudden "open source" sounds good to the PHBs.
Nevermind that it isn't really open. The developers will see right through it. Noone will work for MS for free. But now the term "open source" is less scary to a lot of people.
IMHO, MS is shooting themselves in the foot.
You'd probably be singing quite a different tune if you spent a lot of time and effort to create a lucrative market making "Sheldon brand Widgets" only to have it overrun by a large established company coming in making "Authentic Sheldon brand Widgets".
This is a great article... because it calls into serious doubt MS's willingness to adhere to an open source model *before* the judge considers it as a possible remedy. (Assuming, of course, that virtuous MS actually loses the case to those anti-innovative forces in the goverment and industry. :-)
Now, the DoJ can take steps to prevent MS from being ordered to perform some remedy... then trying to redefine the terms of that order. The mere fact that Muth suggests Windows is "open source" because it's available to a handful of sites under a highly restrictive non-disclosure, non-IP license demonstrates how far they are willing to twist terms. I was surprised there was no mention of the "open source" Melissa MS Word Macro worm. (Oh yeah, mentioning a MS Word virus which requires MS Outlook and MS Express to propogate is probably not a good idea right now...)
If such would happen, you can guarantee ZDNet, MSNBC, etc would be right behind MS. And who's Joe Schmoe going to believe, some band of Linux weirdos at Slashdot and similar sites, or the supreme being, Mr. Gates, and trustworthy names like ZD, MSNBC, CNN, etc?
Isn't this the same Ed Muth that blabbered on about how Linux was
a Force to be Reckoned With(tm), until he figured out that it wasn't a
10 year old's entry into a soapbox derby?
Who gives a rat's ass what Microsoft considers to be Open Source?
They're a dying breed..
I will say, right here, right now, that, if Microsoft releases the source code to any component of the Windows 98/NT/2000 operating system, and proclaims it to be "Open Source," and their license fails to meet the Open Source Definition or the Debian Free Software Guidelines in even one particular, I will not download it, I will not look at it, and I will certainly not work on it.
I don't think Microsoft has the cojones to release their code under a license that even comes close to meeting these criteria...and, if they are bound and determined to do their damnedest to "embrace and extend" (i.e. "conquer and assimilate") the concepts that are the very underpinnings of our community, I will not lift a finger to assist them, and I will do what I can to convince people to do likewise.
I encourage all of you to stand up, declare yourself, and take this "pledge" as I have done. We can show Microsoft that any attempt they make to coopt our community in order to further their greedy, monopolistic empire will be an exercise in utter futility.
Who's with me?
Eric
--
Be who you are...and be it in style!
Honestly, I don't think Microsoft will ever open their source to any usable degree. Their past tactics have shown that they're only interested in everything being proprietary to themselves.
> (at least, they've been using the OSS.NET name >since 1993, and I assume that they only used that >name because of their corporate name).
You know what happens when you assume.
Forget about Linux distro's....
Every damn system is different! We got libc5
libc6. Different widget sets, window managers,
hell even different windowing systems (MetroX,
XFree86 et al)
A lot of boxes run kernels so well tuned
you can't even boot it on another machine!
I guess is too bad it all works, after all thats what really counts.
This is precisely the method used by authors at the start of the computer era such as Steven Levy, who wrote 'Hackers' on an Apple II. Back then you broke documents up into little bits so the software could deal with them.
...or _you_ are. Me, I don't do 'word processors'... my text is text, and whether it's Linux tools or BBEdit Lite, the stuff _I_ use can deal with multi-meg documents without flinching.
In some ways it's heartwarming to see that we're still there...
Ironically, I still like to write novels with chapters as separate files, which I guess illustrates that you _can_ fool all of the people all of the time, especially if most of them don't really care all that much, or expect any sort of progress over the years.
The term "open source" or "open-source" when used in conjunction with software predates its use by the Open Source Initiative(tm) and its registration as the Open Source(r) trademark. Take a look at dejanews - you'll see several uses of it in reference to Free Software, several of which date from nearly ten years ago. I'm starting to doubt that Eric and Bruce "invented" the term several years ago when other people used it long before.
Somebody had posted a link to a very good article about this issue on slashdot a long time ago, but I don't see to have it bookmarked.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Well, it's not accurate to call win95 and win98 separate OSs, since they both run the same software. WinNT runs much of the same software as well.
It would be equivalent to saying that GNU/Linux is extremely fragmented because there are several hundred versions of the Linux kernel.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Posted by smartass:
They say that because it's shrink wrapped, that's why it runs...
My last install of wine took a half dozen tries and about 24 hours.
As an AlphaNT user or sysadmin can attest too. Not all M$ OS are created equal mean they only begrudgingly support the Alpha and would probably drop it if they could. Hey they already dropped MIPS and the PPC platforms. BTW, nowhere in Microsoft's much vaunted Checklist for Windows 2000 Device Driver Development is Alpha compatibility mentioned.
My feeling is Muth is probably speaking more openly about what M$ is really thinking behind closed doors, than Ballmer's "let's make peace overtures". Muth probably believes in all sincerity that the world is better off with a single processor, single OS, and single source of Apps.
Besides we couldn't even mentally handle the burden of knowing what is going in the underlying source code. You see we aren't smart enough only "select group of computer scientists, researchers and original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and engineering partners, who are offered the code under a set of restrictions that prohibit them from commercializing the technology in any way" are. M$ is doing us a favor by protecting us from ourselves.
If you follow Muth's logic to its logical conclusion, then Linus, Alan Cox, RMS, and even JWZ are idiots. They dared develop and then gave back the source.
I have to give Muth credit as at least he doesn't mince words or dodge what he sees as the company line. Ballmer is no better than Al Gore. Both pander and speak words that will make them look like good guys.
Where are Perens and RMS when we really need them???
-dan
P.S. Zapman: DOS 6.22 and WfW are still on the company's active offering list. So there you go two more.
By spreading misinformation about the meaning
of open source it looks like they're trying to
bait OSI into suing them. Maybe they figure they can drag this into court and exhaust the communities resources.
bah.
-belial
Didn't X Windows come onto the scene before MS Windows? I don't remember for sure, but what if it did?
Just speculating.
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
Win 95, Win 95 OSR, Win 95 with Service Pack, Win 95 OSR2, Win95 OSR2.1, Win95 OSR2.5, Win 98, Win 98 Second Edition... do I need to go through all the betas in between?
Try large corporations. Typically they will only have a 5 year upgrade cycle, which means they could still be running Win 3.11 and apps. Once when I was interning at Intel I found out that they had banned Windows 95, so I was forced to write 16-bit code for the programming project I was hired for (which didn't make me happy at all)
Uhm, yeah - several:
Easy to use, my ass.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
We're not saying (at least most of us) that Windows is too fragmented. We're attacking Microsoft's arguement that Open Source leads to fragmentation by turning it back on them.
There are different Linux distributions, but they all work more or less the same way (once installed) and run the same software.
There are different flavours of Windows (Windows95/98, NT, CE, more coming...), but they may or may not run your "Windows" software and good luck trying to use your knowledge of WindowsCE to help you administer an NT box.
Yes, the fragmentation arguement is bogus. That's the point. As long as you have standards, fragmentation (aka. "competition" or "choice") is OK and can even be positive.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
>Remember when Compton's tried unsuccesfully to trademark "multimedia"??
Compton's were granted a patent (later overthrown based on prior art) to multimedia, not a trademark.
>How many M$ executives does it take to change the definition of a word?
Trademarks are identifiers for products, not licenses to set definitions.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
>If I were to create a new Linux distribution, and call it "Windows X" in all the press releases and press briefings
Trademark law protects name identification of products. Naming your operating system product the same name as mine leads to confusion as to whether it's a new product of mine. Clearly you would be violating the Windows trademark if you named your product in that way. There's no open source "product" to protect, so trademark law is irrelevant.
Open Source is a certification mark. That means if I claim something is *certified* as Open Source and if the SPI hasn't approved it, they have legal grounds for a complaint. That's not what Microsoft is claiming.
Now, you might argue that Microsoft's use of the term implies certification. But the term is just too close to plain English for that to stick. When you first heard the term, did you have at least some impression about what it meant? If the term was "Tux Approved", then yes, Microsoft saying "we're thinking of creating Tux approved software, by which we mean..." then you would have grounds for complaint for diluting a certification.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
...I find the alternative even more scary.
Ok, Microsoft is trying to leverage some of the buzz surrounding the open source movement. But fundamentally, they're still using english words in a conversational way. While Microsoft has a trademark on Windows used as a name for a commercial OS, you and I can talk or write about windows in another GUI without ever having to acknowledge the Microsoft trademark. How is Microsoft to refer to what they're planning to do? To trademark a fairly generic term and then claim all uses of that term must refer to a specific set of conditions strikes me as a bigger assault on freedom than anything Microsoft has ever done. A trademark doesn't allow you to define the language.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
So Ballmer and Muth aren't reading off the
same PR script this week, no big deal, but
you can at least see that Microsoft is flirting
with the Open Source idea, tossing around the
ol' boardroom and debating about it internally.
They won't fully pursue it but they do know
how much it really matters to real IT people.
I expect Microsoft will release some code soon,
certainly not enough to apease the Open Source
advocacy crowd, but enough for Microsoft to get
some PR points from clueless tech journalists.
TedC
MS is a big company, but when a target enters the inner zone on its radar, watch the fsck out. This is slowly starting to happen w/ Linux and Open Source.
Soon as they figure out a strategy, the folks at MS will "turn on a dime", as one poster put it, and...... well anyone remember Netscape?
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
I don't think they will, because (a) they are greedy, and (b) they're probably embarassed. I would be too - I'm sure that Windows' source code is an utter rats' nest.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Consider the phrase, "If it compiles, ship it." Apparently, an M$ program/product manager was said to have told someone on his group just that (of course, that probably wasn't the first/last time). Gives you the ol' warm-fuzzies, doesn't it?
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
They would also have to do some heavy sanitation when it comes to security holes as they could no longer rely on security through obscurity to protect them. Not that security through obscurity has worked for them, but it would be infinitely easier to find holes if the source were out there - all it would probably take would be somebody with a copy of slint. This would leave current Windows users in the precarious position of seriously needing to upgrade as a lot of the holes that are there now were probably there before. In a perverted kind of way, that might make Microsoft happy as it will force a lot more users to upgrade than would have otherwise.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
Can someone be persuaded to try it and post the results?
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
I hope they do open up their code. I need a good laugh on occassion.
Axis and Allies (Hasbro) gets only to an animation sequence and hangs.
~ ~^~
And my Windows95 installation is *very* vanilla. All that is loaded on it is the g200 driver that came with the card, Trophy Bass, GospeLink, and CivilizationII gold edition.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^
Opps, really one and a half becuase Trophy Bass also hangs now and again...~ ~^~
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^
MS's OS division earns more money than some countries. Does anyone really think that MS would allow a RedHat or Caldera distro of Windows?
This sig left unintentionally blank.
Did they still have the source for this custom written application? I'm sure it wasn't a question of whether Linux could run it, but rather the programmer made an assumption for a Slackware system that was no longer true on the Redhat System.
On a seperate note, I've taken code from repositories, and compiled them for Linux. Old code. Really really old code. Most of it worked (except for the X code that was looking for some screwy Sony sponsored Xaw libraries).
Draw your own conclusions.
The trademark application, as i understand it, is for "Open Source." "open source" is a term that was in common use prior to the application, and could not receive a valid trademark in this context. It is also, as near as I can tell, what MS said.
I'm not going to touch the question of whether the "Open Source" trademark is valid . . .
No, I'm not.
While the use of a word in the language does not prevent it from becoming a trademark, or being registered as a trademark (the two are not the same), a trademark cannot push aside such prior use.
I cannot obtain or register a trademark for "tennis racket" in any way that will stop a manufacturor from selling what we now know as tennis rackets under tha tname. I could, however, use it as a trademark for a microprocessor.
Similarly, no registration of "Open Source" can stop it's use in the manner prior to the registration.
The ownership & validity of a trademark come from its use, not registration. Registration is a way of notifying the world that someone claims a trademark.
It is not rare for a national or regional chain to have a properly registered trademark, and find, upon trying to expand in a new market, that there is already a business there with the same name which predates the registration. The chain's trademark is not valid in that region; the local owns it. The typical result is that the chain pays far more than the small business is worth to either buy it or to get it to change its name.
Yo moron! Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the reason netscape may be so "buggy" under linux is because it's *NOT* a native linux program, but a port of a Windows program? Of course there are going to be problems cropping up because of the nature of the porting process. Just take a look at lynx and some of the problems people have getting it to run correctly on their machines in the lynx-dev mailing list, especally the MSDOS and Win32 ports of lynx.
I hate to point out the obvious, but this illustrates the problem with the term "open source". While "free software" is ambiguous, "open source" is just plain inaccurate so companies like Microsoft can come along and decide on a new definition for it and most people won't realise that it's wrong.
Sure, "open source" is just as strictly defined as "free software" but because the term doesn't accurately describe what it actually means this allows people to be able to get away (in terms of public perception) with creating their own definitions.
Not to mention the fact that OSI does not own a trademark on the term "open source". They can make it a service mark if they want, but that means nothing. Please can use it any way they want - they only need to meet the OSI definition of Open Source if they want to call it "Open Source(sm)" instead of "open source".
This is similar to how I can refer to the things open on my screen was "windows", but because they weren't put there by Microsoft software, I can't call them Windows(tm).
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
I called it the "perens/raymond" organization becuase I couldn't remember the exact name, and I didn't want to get it confused with any of the other organizations with similar names. Sorry if it offended.
Anyway, as to the other matter, I quote some email I got from a friend who is an intellectual property lawyer, who was speaking off the cuff, not giving a professional opinion:
Anyway, I'm pretty skeptial of Software in the Public Interest's claim to
"Open Source" as a trademark. First, as far as I know, that registration
is still pending. So there's no finding that it's a legitimate mark --
just that SPI has applied for registration and is claiming that it's a
mark. Hell, I can apply for a registration for "IBM" and claim it's a
mark. Doesn't mean I'll get it.
Second, there's a company called Open Source Solutions who has apparently
used that name for at least five years before SPI's first use of it (at
least, they've been using the OSS.NET name since 1993, and I assume that
they only used that name because of their corporate name). I would expect
they would have something to say about SPI's attempt to claim the words
"open souce" as a trademark.
Personally, I believe that the term "open source" has been used
generically long before SPI's first use (February 1998), and that SPI has
no trademark in the term, notwithstanding its application for
registration.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Nobody owns a trademark on the term "Open Source". The Perens/Raymond organization has applied for a trademark, but they're never going to get it. There is prior use of the term, such as the "Open Source System Inc" company standing in their way.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Please... IANAL, (well, in fact, not even an American), but would you think I am free to name my software Windows if I don't call it Windows(TM)?? Of course not.
Talking about "open source", with whatever capitalization, and attribution, in connection to a software distribution/development style, they are obviously talking about Open Source(sm)/(tm)/(whatever); and if they insist they are open source, when they are not, it's clearly a violation of the trade (whatever) mark. I can clearly see the intention to make the expression a bit muddy, and that's why it needs to be protected.
Also, why should SPI/whatever wait until they get the mark itself? It just gives more time for this shoddy corporation to misuse the mark, and damage the value of it; certainly it's urgent to act immediately. Or, would you suggest I'm free to capitalize on "patent pending" patents, and turn down the claims later?
"Ten years from now, they could do it in a few seconds." -- The Racketeer of the Hellfire Club, 1993, Phrack 42
Well, if Open Source can be used how ever they want, can we rename the GNOME project "Windows"
Maybe Bill Gates sees the division inside the Free Software community over the term "Open Source" and is now trying to add to the confusion.
Anyway, Open Source (TM) is Free Software (Freely Redistributable Software, or FRS).
Open Source is a trademark of the Software in the Public Interest.
And Microsoft is testing the water on violating the trademark. Microsoft is looking for a fight?
Is is time for the community to put aside differences and to stand together in preparation for the coming direct conflict with Microsoft?
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
Actually with the exception of a few *smart* people who stick around universities.. in general Universities are places where *dumb* people stagnate.
All the smart people leave ASAP to get well paying jobs.
-Ex-Nt-User
I don't think so.
Perhaps 2 years ago, before the trial, and before the Linux blip appeared on the radars of mainstream reporters.
Now? Linux is big, and MSFT is resented.
Even excluding that, there's one thing who's ass gets infinietly more kissing than MSFT's.
Conflict.
MS vs. OSS is the dominating theme througout most mainstream discussions of Linux. It is, albiet very toned down, a war.
The press *loves* war.
First off, you're comparing apples to oranges. A shrink-wrapped commercial package should install more reliably than an RPM produced by some person out there who thought it would be cool to provide the software.
Second, you're wrong on the off-the-shelf part. I've had lots of Windows programs fail upon installation. Never mind that lots of Win3 programs don't work on NT (MS even admits this), and that certain NT programs don't work on 9x, and that certain 9x programs don't work on NT.
I think it's absolutely ridiculous to be able to take common english words and prevent people from using them.
It's frankly even more stupid than software patents.
Hmm... A friend of mine installed Linux about 3-4 years ago at a company to run a simple customer database of some sort.
He used a commercial package to help write this software at the time, and this ran under Slackware.
Last year the multi-port serial board died in the computer. That model was no longer made, the new model did not have drivers for this version of Slackware with a 1.x kernel.
There were drivers available for RedHat 5.0, and so someone tried to upgrade the machine to that.
Well the new serial board worked. But the custom written software did not. It actually reported a rather interesting error:
"This is not a Linux system."
I can still run software written back in 1983 on my Windows NT machine. Not all of it, some of the stuff that uses funky Pharlap memory extensions and such does not always work well.
But even so, backwards compatibility is a design consideration that Linux has ignored.
And not just Windows, most of the commercial Unices, especially SCO, have tried to incorporate backwards compatibility within their systems.
I think the most pathetic faliure I've had on a windoze box was when I upgraded my CPU from a P133 to a P200 (or something like that), and on reboot it decided that I'd changed video cards on it (which I had not), and locked up. After that, it wouldn't even go into safe mode. I ended up having to install W95 from scratch (which worked, so there was no problem with the hardware).
Meanwhile of course, the Linux installation that was also on the machine didn't even blink.
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
What's that I hear? Microsoft not fragmented?
Let's see: Win95, Win98, WinNT, WinNT64, Win2k[1]
WinCE...
Guh.
[1] "Why are they naming an operating system after the greatest computer disaster in history?"
"Not to mention the year 2000 problem..." (Dialog on a.s.r.)
Zapman
I've always wondered how they got batch files to do so much, now we can find out!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--------------------------------
Not all who wander, are lost.
My last install of wine (and the dozen before that) have all taken 30 seconds:
:)
$rpm -Uvh wine-031599.rpm
I was very impressed when the last version I installed made MS Dev Studio start working
...richie - It is a good day to code.
> Why am I replying to this? No idea. I work on
> Visual Studio, so Office2k is nothing to do
> with me.
Oh. So *you're* the one who made a C++ compiler that generates code so bloated that a 20 line program cannot be compiled on a floppy disk.
VisualStudio is an abomination. You should see the poor dupes at school trying to use it...their machines lock up 2 or 3 times before it will ever load successfully. Probably because the machines are pitiful P90s with 16 megs of RAM, and we all know that that's nowhere near anouth hardware to develop programs on, right?
I hope nobody ever tells my 386/25 laptop that, because it can run emacs, gcc, g++, perl and python just fine in its 8 megs of RAM and 120 megs of hard disk.
Go away, Microsoft Boy.
--
Posted with Mozilla
I'll not defend my intelligence but I will back up my claims about the inefficiency of Visual C++.
While I cannot provide hard numbers, as I do not have any machines which use any Microsoft products and only use Solaris machines at school, I can provide the following evidence (albeit anecdotal to all of you, it is first hand to me):
I have seen two people attempt to compile simple, introductory C++ programs with VC++ and have it fail because there was insufficient space on the floppy they were using for compilation. *NOT* because of the final executable size, but because of the several 200-500k intermediate files left behind by the compiler. I cannot say what these files were (they didn't end in ".o") or what they did.
They were using new 1.44M floppies, btw. I have *seen* an 8-incher once - on an old Osborne 1...but that's neither here nor there.
I have also seen students spend 30 minutes trying to figure out how to use VC++. You can't just open up a new source file, type and compile. Visual C++ may be the finest tool available for high-end Windows development - I wouldn't know - but it is completely unsuitable for use in this situation. Of course, this is not Microsoft's problem, but rather my school's. It does, perhaps, point out a problem with IDEs in general, IMHO.
As for the ad-hominem assaults, I apologize. That was uncalled for and I graciously accept your calling me an ignoramus. We tend to get hot-headed when things we love are threatened, ne?
Thank you for the dialogue.
--
Posted with Mozilla
Don't forget to paint it pink first (nt)
Vermifax
Logout
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
As someone currently at University, I would object to this statement. Yes, smart people go to universities, but so do stupid people. A lot of them. More than the smart people.
Forget about Linux distro's....
Every damn system is different!
Damn straight. I'm using bleeding-edge releases of my kernel, the C & C++ libraries and compilers, and a few other things at home that I won't be installing at work until they've been hammered on a while. My system here is using Window Maker, at work it's FVWM2, and my roommate is using KDE. He also drives a different car, wears different clothing, and likes different food. It's called "freedom of choice", and we like it.
For the record, all of the systems we own or run execute the exact same software binaries fine, (and the LinuxPPC systems run the same software code fine after a recompile).
We got libc5 libc6.
You forgot libc4. That's right, we've got old systems that only run libc5 binaries, ancient systems that only run libc4/a.out, new systems built around libc6, and new systems that run all three. We've got the same programs recompiling with few or no source code changes on the newest systems, but getting the technical benefits nonetheless. Read up on the technical differences between C libraries, and try to stretch your mind to encompass the concepts of "progress" and "backwards compatibility" at the same time. Once you've grokked that, email Microsoft and ask them why most of their drivers, DOS, and Win16 programs don't work with Windows "New Technology". Then ask them why most of their Win32 programs still don't work with "Windows 2000" without source code changes. Then ask them what's going to happen to that 32-bit specific API when they finally push 64-bit NT (a separate project from Windows 2000...) out the door three or four years from now.
Different widget sets, window managers,
Yeah, yeah: "Ein MFC, Ein Windows, Ein Microsoft." Great world for everyone to be forced to live in. Different widget sets and different window managers fill different needs of programmers and users, accomodate wider sets of preferences, and in general foster competition and evolution of software. Anyone horribly confused by a GTK program sitting on the same desktop as (or an adjacent virtual desktop to) a Lesstif program should probably just give up entirely and get WebTV.
hell even different windowing systems (MetroX,
XFree86 et al)
If you think those are different windowing systems, you need to go back and do some more reading. The exact same programs run on either and can't tell the difference. Most hardware works with either happily. In fact, chew on this: not only are different X servers not incompatible, they are so compatible that I can run decades old HP-UX programs on the same desktop next to new Linux software, with the only noticeable change being that Qt and GTK look better than Motif.
A lot of boxes run kernels so well tuned
you can't even boot it on another machine!
Yes, boxes whose owners have chosen to make those tuning changes themselves. Nobody's holding a gun to your head to force you to use 486 or Pentium II specific instructions, or to get rid of your EIDE drivers on a SCSI-only machine, you know.
I guess is too bad it all works, after all thats what really counts.
Try not to sound too disappointed.
I really don't understand the backlash here - for most people, if Linux isn't for you, don't worry about, ignore it in the papers and the trade rags, and it won't bother you again until they start advertising idiot proof distributions in 2005. If you're a Win9x user and happy that way then Linux just isn't a factor.
If you're an NT server programmer watching your world start to crumble, on the other hand, I can recommend several good books on the POSIX standard that you may find of interest in the near future.
> have seen two people attempt to compile simple, have seen two people attempt to compile simple, introductory C++ programs with VC++ and have it fail because there was insufficient space on the floppy they were using for compilation. *NOT* because of the final executable size, but because of the several 200-500k intermediate files left behind by the compiler. I cannot say what these files were (they didn't end in ".o") or what they did.
.pch - pre-compiled headers. These can easily grow over 1Mb, and all it is is pre-processed headers. I once had a directory tree with about 15 projects, some with several executables, and .pch files were taking about 400Mb, almost all of it exact duplicates. Turning off .pch's in all the projects was a major pain in the arse, it took me about 2 days just locate all the files that had pch generation turned on.
.ilk, itermediate link - a device to speed up the linker that tends to once again eat tons of disk space with if you have lots of projects.
.bsc - browse source, which speeds up source browsing in projects. I don't find it that useful, and usually turn it off.
.ncb, .pdb, etc etc, each of which was designed to speed up some part or other of the IDE. All of them are turned on by default, and the just chew up massive amounts of disk. I have noticed very little preformance decrease by eliminating many of them, if you have enough memory and CPU. Maybe if I had a pentium 66, 8Mb RAM and a very slow disk they would speed things up, but with 128MB RAM , a fast CPU (PPro 200 or better) and a decent hard drive, the performance benefits of most ofthese monsters are pretty marginal.
.ilk, .pch or .bsc, for the whole environment, rather than having to deal with them on a by project or by file basis. It would also be nice if there was an option to delete all of theses files at once, rather than having to delete them manually if I decide to archive a whole projects directory. It is convienient for me to archive whole project trees at once, and having to archive all the only marginally useful, or automatically regenerated IDE speedup files is a pain in the ass.
HA! I have used VC++ some, and I have some idea what these are. The first culprit is the
The next candidate is the
Next in line are the
There are about 10 other extensions,
It would be nice if there was a common panel somewhere in the IDE that would allow me to control whole classes of files -
Tell me if I'm wrong, but in a nutshell, didn't they just say that they benefit from people paying them to improve their (P)OS? It talks about universities doing that very thing... That can't be true though... Universities are supposed to be where the *smart* people flock.
Earn cash in your spare time! Blackmail your friends!
heh, your right, it was an over generalization on my part...
your post freaked me out for a second though. Orion is my first name... course you could care less... if you want, me mail and I'll send you a scan of my birth certificate
Earn cash in your spare time! Blackmail your friends!
By their definition, open source is available to a limited set of people (a select group of computer scientists, researchers, and original equipment manufacturers). Those select few cannot redistrubute it (thus commmercializing the technology). They have no rights to the work or derived works. Their ideas must be review before being incorperated back in. Sound a lot like a closed license to me.
One would wonder though if this isn't a good chance to counter charge the other direction. If they can redefine "open source", can we not redefine "windows", "office" and "explorer"? Let them come a attack us with the counter charge that they are diluting trademarks in exactly the same fashion. Which has greater value, Windows or open source?
Unfortunately, MicroSoft is the 800 pound goralla. Most likely it will try to both get itself labeled open source and keeps its our trademarks intact. Lets just hope it doesn't get a seat on this bus.
--Karl
Yes, X was first, but it's called "X". (Or "X Window System" or "X11". The X Consortium has trademarked "X Window System".)
Mark Fassler
fassler at frii dot com
Mildly Burnt out are we? First off Take a few breaths and relax. Second I think alot of people have these problems and I really thik it comes in the order of what's installed on a system seeing as new dll's cause there to be an almost infanate amount of different windows installs. I myself have a network running a bunch of 98 boxes at my work. Unfortunatly about a week after I installed them they started crashing right and left. No idea why. Had to re-install on three machines. and the sad art is these people don't even know how to install software so nothing was installed on it after I left. I really hate windows.
"We want to take over the world, but we don't want to do it tomorrow, it's OK if it's next week"-- Linus Torvalds
Then why is their software so buggy?
I bet their quality control system consists of:
* Check if it breaks 3rd party apps: OK
* Check if Word doesn't break writing letter to mom: OK
* Convert to hungarian notation: SHIP.
--IDG.Net article 'Microsoft open to open source for Windows?'
At present, we have plenty of ``keep quiet'', but not enough freedom talk. Most people involved with free software say little about freedom--usually because they seek to be ``more acceptable to business.'' Software distributors especially show this pattern. Some GNU/Linux operating system distributions add proprietary packages to the basic free system, and they invite users to consider this an advantage, rather than a step backwards from freedom.
We are failing to keep up with the influx of free software users, failing to teach people about freedom and our community as fast as they enter it. This is why non-free software such as Qt, and partially non-free operating system distributions, find such fertile ground. To stop using the word ``free'' now would be a mistake; we need more, not less, talk about freedom.
Let's hope that those using the term ``open source'' will indeed draw more users into our community; but if they do, the rest of us will have to work even harder to bring the issue of freedom to those users' attention. We have to say, ``It's free software and it gives you freedom!''--more and louder than ever before.
--Richard Stallman
This is a dangerous time for our community. Microsoft is going to try to blur the line between what's good for them and what's good for us. In fact, I believe that this is Open Source's main pitfall - it implies that allowing people to look at the source will expand profits by making the software better, and people happier. This kind of makes sense for a company who *needs* open development to stay alive (like Netscape), but this is not the case for Microsoft. All the wishing in the world won't take away the fact that Microsoft is not genuinely interested in improving their product in any meaningful way. They are interested in making money - an improved software package would be merely a pleasant side effect. By making their product Open Source, they are interested in making those who are intolerant of Microsoft change their minds and at the very least stop working against them. They are interested in sucking mindshare and synergy away from us. That is all. There is a reason why Bill Gates is the richest man in the world - it's because he is a cutthroat businessman. If we forget that, even for an instant, we are doomed.
RMS isn't an idiot, he's seen this scenario coming from a mile away. I sincerely hope that recent events are making it more apparent that, for all the downsides there are to Free Software, it at least provides a good method to keep Microsoft, and others like them, from subverting everything we've worked for.
..that Linux doesn't even have yet? That would be:
(a) locked-down control by one company whose priority is profits, not performance?
(b) a second-rate GUI designed on third-rate principles?
(c) a FUD/PR engine working day and night to promote it?
Muth's statement that shrink-wrapped software runs on any Windows computer is demonstrably FALSE. One great example: at my office our highly-paid consultants worked for days trying to figure out why neither MS Access nor Pervasive's ODBC engine setup programs would even run under NT, regardless of who was logged in (even Administrator). One of the techs finally fixed it, but he had no idea how.
MS Access qualifies as "shrink-wrapped software". It's made and marketed by the same people who produce the OS it was to be running on.
I can tell you countless stories of how RPM files work great when you install them, but more than that -- if an RPM fails, I can grab the SRPM, rebuild it, and figure out what went wrong. Failing that, I can use the large number of free debugging tools (gdb, etc.) to figure out why the program doesn't run.
So let's give some credit where credit is due.
Nothing worth doing is worth doing today.
Backwards compatibility? Hm. Around here I just recompile, and stuff works :)
Not knowing the nature of this custom software you're describing, I can't say anything except the fact that open source software wouldn't run into problems like that -- the customer could rebuild his own app, and/or find out why the app apparently decided it wasn't running under linux (despite the fact that "uname -s" would have revealed it was, whatever the version).
Backwards compatibility is fine. BEND-OVER-backwards compatibility is not something I feel any operating system needs.
Nothing worth doing is worth doing today.
Is it me or does this article basically say Microsoft would consider opening up their source to a select group of computer scientists and specialists who will work on extending the OS and it's technologies with no hope of receiving recognition or payment for any of the work or its derivatives in the future? Pretty sweet deal for MS if you ask me. They "allow" some people to extend their OS for them, and then sell that work as their own. I never knew Open Source could be so closed.
-- let me burn you let me burn you let me burn you -Front 242
Is the service pack shrink wrapped? Oh, and how much does it cost?
--
Program Intellivision!
Given the known instability of Windows products the statement about "quality control" is the biggest load of garbage I've seen in a long, long, time.
--Kit
Former Inmate, VA Linux Sanitarium
May be Muth and Ballmer need to have a conversation once in a while or may be this plain ol bs from ms!
, 1014079,00.html
"I find it hard to believe that some of the best computer scientists in the world will want to do their work for free," he said. "Without a long-term technical road map,without multimillion-dollar test labs, someone wants me to believe these visionary programmers and developers will want to do the best work of their lives and then give it away. I do not believe in that vision of the future."
ed muth, msoft
http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153
open what?
That statement is completely true. ``Open
Source'' is a pending trademark; `open source' is
not. Neither will ever be certified as a
trademark. If they are, it will be yet more proof
of the USPTO's incompetent boobery.
Whatever ``Open Source'' may have meant, it
ceased to mean anything the day Eric Raymond
appeared on the same stage as Steve Jobs.
---------------------------------
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage,
What in the name of all that is holy do you DO to a machine to screw up installs that badly? Try to plug in a new video card while it's still on? Kick the hard drive? Either you're a liar or you're purposely screwing up things in ways I can only imagine.
No shit. Anyone still using win3.1 apps needs to move on to a newer version. At a certain point of age, it's useless to try to make something work on current machines. MS markets nt to professional users. I've yet to see a professional user purposly use a 4-5 year old outdated app. There are better and newer things out here. You don't still use dos 3.0 or linux 1.0, do you?
As far as 9x not working well with nt, the vast majority of 9x apps will work quite happily on nt. The ones that don't usually have an nt version around. 9x and nt are different operating systems, so of course there will be incompatibilities.
Even if 'window' was used in GUI terminology pre-MS, unless a company specifically named their windowing system "Windows" prior to MS, the trademark claim is still valid. Instead, "window" was used to describe one aspect of the GUI, rather than the entire GUI system or the whole OS. Here's an example: the Linux trademark fiasco. Because "Linux" had already been the name of the OS/Kernel for years prior to the guy from NJ trademarking it. This is what proved his claim fraudulent. If you can find a pre-MS GUI product named "Windows", then someone can take MS to court over it.
Anyways, the article itself didn't say anything about trademark. as long as MS doesn't claim "Open Source", they're in the clear. "open source" as a phrase is not trademarked. They may be stupid often enough, but they know well enough that use of a trademarked term will have to go hand-in-hand with complying to the terms of use of said trademark.
IANAL. I am not infallible. I admit that I could be wrong about this. Corrections (with evidence, counterevidence, etc.) Welcome.
marijane
Netscape is virtually the only non-alpha program I've ever had serious problems with on Linux.
I used to get Bus Errors out the wazoo. Upgrading to 4.5 and then more recently to 4.51 helped, but only some.
Then there was the strange problem of certain sites with complex HTML (cough cough, Slashdot, Freshmeat) also causing bus errors.
This one stumped me for a long time, then eventually I figured out what to do. Save your bookmark and address book files out of .netscape, then rm -r ~/.netscape
Worked for me, at least. I haven't had Netscape crash in a good long while.
Also, switching to XEmacs for my mail / newsreading / HTML composition also gave me some peace of mind. Too often I'd loose important mail / HTML documents I was writing because a browswer window freaked out.
Actually because Open Source is a registered service mark, you can sue on the basis that it is an issue that causes confusion in the mind of the public (consumers) as to the brand identity.
The registered service mark means that Microsoft is treading on thin ice right now with their ill inspired tactic of attempting to water down what Open Source means. Having spoken to many insiders at Microsoft I have been told they have NEVER had any intention of releasing the source code, rather this was a tactic cooked up by management to attempt to fight the OSS phenomena. I would still like a process of discovery upon a filing for disassempling or issuing a supenea for Microsoft Source Code for NT and for other products to see if any GPL code exists anywhere in them. If so Microsoft would not have a choice but to make their products Open Source. Not that I would particularly care for their products anyway but I detest Balmer, Muth & CO. arrogance.
Any other thoughts on this?
Nick
Linux Data Systems
LSG
Folks this is a test. It is a test of your resolve and the resolve of the whole Open Source Movement to fight for the ServiceMark of Open Source Software... M$ knows that Open Source is the best marketing tool we have right now...
They DO NOT have permission from Eric or anyone else I know of the use the term Open Source in relationship to their products. This is a legal fight folks... The first of many to come.
Don't be reactionary, be responsive and overcome these idiots by using the media against them, and using the law! Because that is exactly what they are trying to do to you..
First they will create a confusion in the minds of consumers about who and what is open source, then they will use their little Linux think tank known at egg.microsoft.com to come up with some hair brained scheme to associate Linux with thin clients only and how their NT is just "Too Good" to be used as a thing client but Linux is a small, admirable, pitiful attempt to make a free thin client thus obscuring what OSS and Linux really is.... A SERIOUS THREAT to Microsoft's empire...
Let's get with it folks. Take it from a guy who bet his whole business on Linux... and won!
I deal with the CEO's of other companies every day. They and the purchasing managers are the ones you have to make things clear to as they are the ones who write the checks. They are influenced by a number of things including public impression.
Let's do this in a civil, appropriate and mature manner but fight this as a tradmark infringement which is what it is...
Nick Donovan
Linux Data Systems
LSG
As for the actual topic... MS? Open Source? Cut me a break... yarrrrrrgh....
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Having your name next to the words "Open Source" is turning into the computing world equivalent of a politician having his/her photo taken shaking the hand of the Pope. Though the two may have nothing in common with the other, nonetheless showing the two together lends an air of credibility and endorsement to one (often at the expense of the other!)
MS may also be muddying the water here. But after the "Al Gore" website, I think it's mostly word association. Muddying of "Open Source" is a secondary benefit on their part.
--Tiger
It's no wonder that software won't work on MS-DOG operating systems out of the box. Their operating system has fragmented into MS-DOS, DR-DOS, IBM-DOS, Windows 3.0, Windows 3.1, Windows 3.11, Windows 95r1, Windows 95 r2, Windows 95 w/IE4.0, Windows 98, Windows NT 3.5, Windows NT 4.0, Windows NT service pack 3, and Windows 2000 (to be coming).
Hell, just last night I was completely unable to get my wife's fax modem working with some crappy piece of software. It kept giving me undefined error messages, and the help system was written for retards. When I'd print 9 pages to the FAX printer, the FAX software would always say it was sending 2 pages.
My wife got really pissed at me because I kept repeating over and over "Linux has only ONE fax program that I know of, and it just works."
I hope that Microsoft stays clueless. It might not happen. Remember when Bill Gates suddenly "got" the internet and MS turned on a dime and consumed the competition in a few months? Right now MS is acting cluelessly. That might not be true next month. Is MS even capable of ever understanding free software? I'll bet that MS is not, and that they never truly understand what's eating them up.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Yes, I wondered this as well. I wonder how much code is a hack to fix a hack to get a feature into Windows quickly and out the door. I also wonder if several of MS competitors will take a very close look to see if any of their own code has been 'borrowed' and put into Windows. Hmm....I wonder if we will find any GPL'd code in there buried somewhere deep :) Probably not, GPL code works well, unlike some other bits of code.....
After reading this article, it occured to me that MS may be using its tried and true tactic by embracing the term 'Open Source' then extending its definition. If it starts talking its own version of open source to everyone, claiming Windows is just that, then the public will believe them. They probably figure that the OSI group will not attack them for trademark infringement.
By altering the very definition of what is/isn't Open Source, MS may be trying to attack Linux and other OSS projects from a completely different angle. As well, if they cannot change the definition outright, then muddling the definition may be enough. MS hates to play on other peoples terms, they try to fit the terms to their own needs.
That being said, I somehow doubt that the OSI or the community in general would sit quietly by if such a thing were to happen.
Not only that, but can you imagine the frankenstein a legion of MS hackers would
come up with {{shudder}}
Chuck
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Actually, whether or not M$ has good coders on the payroll, the point is M$ *USERS*, being mostly spoon fed computer illiterate (nothing really bad there either, it's a large market) would make a mess if they attempted to fix the annoying bugs, quirks and features in a M$ product themselves, were it made open source.
Chuck
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Oh, and one last point - M$ has ALREADY vastly profited from one aspect of the open source development model: the use of customers as unwitting beta testers who bought the vapor ware adverts, and then helped finish the products as they (the customers) dug up all the quirks that slipped by the limited in house testing as it was rushed to market.
I'm an old fogey and remember a lot of computer hobbyists who felt like they were part of the uP fueled anti-IBM mainframe gang, and did a lot of volunteer work for M$ in cleaning up their act, and who are now feel completely alienated and abandoned, as if M$ were saying, "thanks for your help, SUCKER!'.
Chuck
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I could point of lots of silliness here...(Linux+X crashes more then Windows on balance?!?!), or I could point out that most Linux systems do, in fact, have a monitor and run X, but, I have an Othello game I could be playing.
Someone else feed the troll, my time is precious.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Well, aside from the fact that quoting someone is generally considered fair use and not a violation of copyright... is there some reason that you specifically name ZDnet? Do they make a habit of stealing commentary from slashdot, or from you in particular? :is: genuine curiousity at work and not an attempt at irony.)
(For the oversensitive - this
--Parity
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
What does "mean" mean?? What does "what" mean?
How many M$ executives does it take to change the definition of a word?
Remember when Compton's tried unsuccesfully to trademark "multimedia"??
M$ isn't just living in a different world, they're in a whole different dimention (dementia) if they're starting to redefine words to suit their marketting strategy.
Unfortunatelly, it is going to get worse before it gets better. It's going to make "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms Lewinsky." look like an honest mistake before it's over.
For a very long time I felt that there was room for M$ on the planet. Now, I hope the DOJ breaks them up into development teams of one individual.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
I believe that Microsoft may open up their source code, if the state attorneys general want to wring an amicable settlement out of this thing -- but I'm not sure it's going to matter one whit. M$ won't allow competing "Windows XX" products, for certain -- and will retain its de facto market share.
That aside, I'm not sure what effect there is from their using the term "open source" to mean whatever they like. It certainly won't affect the dominance of Windows vs. Linux in the market (viz. above). It certainly doesn't affect the "trademark" of the term "Open Source" -- they can't legally SELL it using that term ("Open Source Windows"), but they can certainly chit chat about it in any terms they like.
So neither their doing "open source" under their chosen terms, nor their use of the term, threatens the Open Source organization or its control of that term in any reasonable way. It's just more FUDging from the M$ higher-ups, trying to spin a favorable DOJ decision. Linux/Open Source has just unwittingly[1] become a pawn in this game.
[1] I say unwittingly, but that's disingenuous -- Linux has aggressively inserted itself into the debate, aided and abetted by Compaq, HP, et al. And yes, now Linux is a victim of its own recent success, and will receive less rah-rah press and more pooh-pooh. Again, just media folderol. Linux will continue to be a success, on its own terms. We do not need to measure up to the Microsoft marketshare/mindshare standard.
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
Seriously ... I don't see this "scenario" having any effect on the already considerable momentum Linux and Open Source have within the niche they are destined to own.
... marginalized perhaps, but not subverted. What, are we gonna let M$ have a seat on the Open Source board and force changes in the GPL to suit itself? Of course not. THAT would be subversion.
Unless we, or someone, imagine we're a doppelGates and need a product like "OpenSource Linux 2000" to take over the market, what's to worry about? Linux is certainly due to challenge Microsoft for a certain niche in ways that other Unix variants never had a chance to, but that niche is all we should care about. Believing, wrongly, that Linux "wuzza contendah" to be a doppelWindoze insults both Linux and its advocates. There was never, repeat never, any doubt that Microsoft would do everything in its power to retain its market share. The few products that have gone up against them have either found their market niche (PalmPilot, Quicken) or fallen by the wayside as M$ introduced market equivalents (often substandard in either features or quality, but nemmind). Novell (remember them?) is fighting right now to find its own niche in a Microsoft world.
We don't need to dilute Linux to fight Windows. Nor need we worry about our good work (and works) being "subverted"
QUAKEing like this merely validates M$ FUD. Seek our own path.
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
"Open Source" is a marketable product only in the Microsoft sense (mindshare).
The best marketing tool that we have right now is the end result which is Linux.
Trying to argue a violation of trademark for a statement in an interview is hogwash. Talk to an int-property lawyer about that one.
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
Would you please post the win9x workstation install? I enjoyed reading your server install.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
So you're claiming that something to the effect of
if(test `uname -r` != 1.0.3) then
echo This is not a linux system
exit 0
fi
Is Linux's fault? Yes, that's shell code and the program was probably written in something else, but if some moron inserts a brain-dead test to see if a system is a Linux system, that's not Linux's fault. Moreover, you should never quit after determining that the system isn't what you anticipated, you should print a warning and just try to work until you get an unrecoverable error (such as can't open a necessary file, etc.). If they have the source, this is probably a 1-line fix. Just remove that stupid check. Otherwise, well, they're screwed. But then again, try running all sorts of DOS binaries under NT, you'll have a very hard time. Furthermore, try running them that check for specific files, a specific FAT table type, or a specific verison number (say by looking at your command.com binary or some other stupid method).
No OS is ever going to protect you from idiots writing your code.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
Microsoft can never kill GNU. They might be able to kill the current Linux hype, but they cannot even touch GNU. Why? Because GNU is free software (and Linux is also). No matter what Microsoft may do, I and my freed software comrades[1] will continue to develop, improve, and implement freed software to replace proprietary software. You can kill Netscape (or Apple) by killing their revenue stream--but when your revenue stream is funded by donations, or when you don't have a revenue stream (e.g. the Slackware folks or the Debian folks, to an extent), big, bad companies can't do much to hurt you, other than abuse patent law (which the courts will most likely reject).
--jon. Postel is dead. May we all mourn his, and our, loss.
OSI has to sue MS immediately for abuse of the trademark. A trademark is only worth anything if it's promptly and regularly defended against misue.
Let MS continue abusing the term, and it'll be too late to do anything later -- MS can later argue in court that since OSI has not acted promptly to defend its trademark, the term is now public domain.
Why should someone have to break the document up in the first place? Microsoft should put out a product that can handle it in the first place.
Everytime they relase a new Office Package, it gets bigger and bigger and shittier and shittier.
I wonder if we can go on war missions in the flight simulator that is hidden in excel 2000.
-Jae
A lot of boxes run kernels so well tuned
you can't even boot it on another machine!
What's your point behind that statement? If I backed up your Windows partition and installed it on my machine, who's to say it would boot either?
I would rather have the ability to fine tune my kernel so I know I'm getting max performance out of my hardware then using something generic that doesn't
-Jae
Do they have more money than what can be raised by the /. and/or linux community world wide.
Do they really want the resulting bad publicity at the same time as the anti-trust suit.
Didn't Microsoft say something about changing what "Open Source" means in order to win?
After reading the Halloween docs, it's obvious that the real threat to MS is not Linux, but the whole concept of OSS. So if something like Linux is threatening your future, change the rules of the game.
Old debating tactic, "If you can't win an argument, change what it is you are arguing about!"
Let's just assume that they can and will co-opt the open source name... So what? All of our work is still by definition free software, which in the public's mind can never apply to Microsoft. We here all know the "free speech not free beer" mantra, but if and when Microsoft starts to say free software on a regular basis, people will expect a major software handout. If Microsoft counters with the speech/beer thing, then they'll be forced to give up control of their position.
The open source name can go for all I care and anyway, what difference does it make whether it's MS or RMS who does it? The free software name, though is one that MS can never embrace, simply because doing so would put them in a pickle between the ambiguous meanings of the word "free".
I like to play children's songs in minor keys.
"We're all sons of bitches now." --J. Robert Oppenheimer
Ahh, they're going to let outside developers work on Microsoft's website.
"I think the detail [source] we give is significantly higher than our competitors, particularly for Windows 2000," Muth said.
What competitors are those? Linux? No, it's all GPL'd Apple? No, Darwin's out in the open. Who then?
I think Muth is making a bogus argument, and I think he knows it.
The problems within the source trees of each MSFT OS are pretty well known.
The commercial Unix OS's I have worked with have source trees that are just as broken.
Mozilla released portions of Netscape's source and it was broken too.
Consider any argument against Open Source that claims any quality or consistency benefits from having a single business entity controlling the source code bogus.
Distributing development of an OS in a way that forces independent justification and review of code changes has a positive impact on quality and consistency.
MS Visual C++ Professional. For serious users, right?
The NT machines in our high school labs choke and die on VC++. It's rather sad to see. And they're from the same company. That should dispel any ideas about 'lack of credit' and compatibility out of shrinkwrap.
So this moderation system really seems to work. If there were another post by CmdrTaco about moderation, I would post it there, instead...
/. and to know what to expect to appear at /.
Now that my words actually have value, I find myself carefully reviewing, reading other arguments, and then posting a calculated post...
I also see something quite amusing here.
Anyone read Ender's Game? More specifcally, the sequal, in which Val and Peter Wiggins assume carefully crafted personas on the worldwide network, and through careful usage of word and opinion, gain rank, respect, fame, and influence?
I'd take the Peter Wiggins role, which I believe was called Locke, if anyone else wants to play Valentine's Demosthenes? As in the story, the game would involve getting higher and higher post values, carefully creating consistent personas, trawling the web not only for current info and viewpoints to manipulate and take advantage of, but also to post to
I have no plans or expectations for a hegemony or world conquest, as Peter did, but only to have fun, and see how cool it would be. Of course it would require people to take new personas, accounts, and names.
Random brain fart.
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
For it's part, I think M$ is misusing the term, but in reality, I also think everyone is mis-interpreting M$'s speculation.
If I recall correctly, M$ is considering releasing it's source to valuable customers, sort of a good will gesture and as a service. Home users don't quite qualify as valuable customers, yet. It's main use would not be the improvement of their OS, per se, but of a total quality cycle in which developers and massive deployments can rely on the source and being able to either debug, or at least accurately report to M$, a problem.
They are considering opening the source to their valuable customers, and not making their product Open Source(TM), IIRC.
As a business move, it's no different than an independent software house providing source alongside with binaries when doing proprietary stuff.
It would also, on M$ part, tie the relationship closer to it's customers, for good and for bad.
It might also lead to some really good improvements in the future of the Win OSes if large organizations such as SGI, IBM, HP, Dell, Compaq, etc., were able to examine the source, offer improvements, extensions, and patches, without M$ spending much on it, and these companies will get the ability to differentiate their products.
SGI would be able to extend and expand their Visual PC, for example... And still maintains some level of compatibility with the Win32API, if for example M$ rules that the APIs stay fixed and only the implementations can be free, sort of the way that OpenGL is currently, with the API well defined, each vendor responsible for designing and releasing an ICD/MCD, and also with each vendor being able to release and offer extensions using the OpenGL extensions capability.
It may mean that a valuable customer is someone to whom M$ has been paid to see the source, like a down payment or lease or deposit to ensure that the source isn't leaked.
It's not a bad move, I think.
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
There are several hundred "builds" of the Windows OS as well, most not released, but some released as betas and beta candidates. Other than that I agree.
...is not surprising coming from Microsoft. After all, they believe that "Windows NT" stands for a stable, scalable operating system. This is much different than the definition that is in common use.
I can still run software written back in 1983 on my Windows NT machine. Not all of it, some of the stuff that uses funky Pharlap memory extensions and such does not always work well.
But even so, backwards compatibility is a design consideration that Linux has ignored.
You are missing the point. Assuming that the error you mentioned is not a result of stupid code, you should remember that, due to the different history, 'backwards compatibility' means different things in Windows and Unix world.
In Windows, where everything is a binary, the only backwards compatibility model is binary as well. This, of course, means layers upon layers of cruft, to preserve the binary-level backwards compatibility.
In Unix, where source code rules, the thing you usually need is source-level backwards compatibility. if your company had half-a-brain, they would have kept the source around; then, if the code was actually well-designed (i.e. without assuming that it MUST be Linux (*BSD and x86 Solaris can run Linux binaries, remember?), much less any specific version of Linux) -- in short, if the incompatibility issue was the OS's fault, all you would have to do is recompile, perhaps with some minor code changes.
\begin sarcasm
Yes, spending 2 minutes recompiling your app is a heavy price to pay for clean, relatively cruft-free design...
\end sarcasm
--
--
Victor Danilchenko
OK, let's apply critical thinking here...
The problem is that Open Source (as the term is used by 99% of the people on Slashdot) actually has multiple meanings -- there's the trademarked one, and there's the "Open Source == GPL" one, which is alas, completely and utterly *wrong* [Open Source is a superset of GPL].
I trust you are familiar with the notion of a 'set'?.. 'Open Source', as defined by OSI/SPI/etc, describes the rules by which one can test for the membership of a given license in the set 'open Source Licenses'. This means that GPL, BSD, MPL, etc. are examples of Open Source license.
However, let's go back to the context of the article:
--
--
Victor Danilchenko
Sorry accidentally pressed the 'Submit' button too early.
--
--
Victor Danilchenko
And you don't have personal bias falling into this?
/.'.
/. readers.
I certainly do -- but I don't initiate threads with titles as inflamatory as 'Death of critical thinking on
I already said I might be wrong in my statements. But the possibility still exists that ZDNet screwed up in their reporting -- and the language used in those reports is enough to make me think it *was* screwed up. (Heck, I was a writer before I started coding for a living -- I've interviewed enough people myself in my time. In fact, it's things like these which is why I always tried to get my sources to read over the article before publication).
The point -- the purpose for my original post -- still stands. If you make a sweeping accusation of this nature, you better be damn sure that you are not guilty of what you accuse others of. In this particular case, your post itself showed lack of critical thinking that you seem to expect from
Actually, it is much better to not make such sweeping generalizations at all -- but you are free to suit yourself.
--
--
Victor Danilchenko
The problem is that Open Source (as the term is used by 99% of the people on Slashdot) actually has multiple meanings -- there's the trademarked one, and there's the "Open Source == GPL" one, which is alas, completely and utterly *wrong* [Open Source is a superset of GPL].
Indeed. Now how does that show that the term 'Open Source' has multiple meanings? Unlike most words in natural languages, terms like this are NOT defined by usage. Just as 'binary tree' or 'MSCE' in certain context means exactly one thing -- in a similar manner, 'Open Source' in this context means one thing, and this meaning is not dependent on the term's common usage.
Problem 1: There's no actual quote from Muth on the "definition of Open Source" -- he's just stated as saying that "open source" has a variety of meanings -- now take it as a quote from someone who's not well versed on open source -- BSD and GPL are different "meanings" of Open Source. So, that's what he could be talking about.
Wrong. BSDL and GPL (and QPL and MPL and others) are examples of OS licenses -- just as both Tokyo and New York are examples of cities. All this means is that 'Open Source license' is a set rather than a primitive term, and specific licences are its members. There is only one -- rather rigid -- set of criteria for the membership in the set 'Open Source licenses'. No confusion or plurality of meanings here -- that one set of criteris is the meaning of 'Open Source license'.
Strike one...
Problem 2: The paragraph that starts out "Differing Definitions"... 'But its definition of "open source code licenses" means making the technology available to only a select group of computer scientists' -- this DEFINITELY looks like bad reporting to me. Look at the test that goes before it: "Microsoft says it has, for the past five years, been licensing some or all of the underlying programming...." -- sounds like the journo decided that this "licensing" must be what MS meant by open sourcing its stuff!
Note that the full sentence goes like this:
So, if we are to believe the letter of this, the reporter seems to merely be paraphrasing Muth's statement, rather than imposing his/her own interpretation of the state of affairs. You cannot get away with blaming the reporter's assumptions here -- the only way to ditch this paragraph, is to say that the reporter paraphrased incorrectly, rather than drew an invalid connection -- to say that the reporter misrepresented rather than misconstrued, to say that the reporter lied.
Strike two...
Solution? You all need to read/get hold of a transcript of the interview before blowing your stacks in future. Or at the very least, take what you read with a pinch of salt.
Actually, as I have shown, your attempt at analysis here is not quite up to par with the standards that you proclaimed in the message's title. The solution thus is to read the article more carefully, rather than to attempt such a badly-done (likely due to personal bias) deconstruction.
Strike three -- and yer out.
Dude, when you accuse others of lack of critical thinking, you better be damn sure that your own arguments are sound, and that your analyses are bulletproof. It's, like, obvious, dude!
--
--
Victor Danilchenko
Cute. I think I will modify a Linux Mandrake distribution and call it "windows nt".
Hamal is an yellow star in the constallation Aries.
It is 66ly away, so it doesn't alter your personality.
"That's why you can buy a piece of shrink-wrapped software, and that's why the software runs. . . "
and then five seconds later it crashes and you reboot.
I swear, all of Microsoft's crappy-ass products are what got me trying out Linux in the first place. Seems to me they do a better job of promoting Linux just by putting out more bad products.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GIT d? s: a-- C++++ UL++++ P++ L+++ E- W++ N o-- K- w--- O- M+ V PS+ P
yeah, microsoft doesn't want windows to become fragmented. forbid that someone comes along and makes a compatible product. hell, that might mean....competition!
pinko.
they weren't using the phrase "Open Source", they were using the phrase "open source", in the same way that one can use the phrase "windows" but not "Windows".
I've had several occasions where shrink-wrapped
software failed to work on my Win95 box, even
after I had applied all service patches. In
all of these cases, we're talking games, go that
shouldn't be too much of a surprise -- but it
does happen.
I hope they pay you a LOT of money to lie so poorly. Remember this name: Lee Atwater. He lied a lot and meet a very ugly end. Don't make the same mistakes he did.
"Klaatu, verada, necktie!" -Ash
Unfortunatelly I do not have the time to play "Ender's Game", because i am working on a FAQ about the Kosovo crisis. ;-)
I just want to give kudos to the conceivers of this moderating system.
/. character changed to the better in a snap. It is fascinating and amazing to wittness.
ESR again shows how eager he is to bend over backwards (or is that bend over forwards?) for proprietry software companies who are using the term "open source" literally. Nobody can really disagree that NT isn't "open source" - people *can* get the source right?
...
Maybe he needs to step back a bit, and take a thought about what is in the best interests of the Free Software ("Open Source") movement, since he is so often quoted as representing that movement.
His only ideology at the moment appears to be to praise anybody's use of the phrase "open source" in any of their announcements. And the bigger and more proprietry the company, the quicker he seems to do so.
Now it just seems to be a jazzy marketing term with little real meaning
... Oh thats right, thats all it ever was anyway.
__// `Thinking is an exercise to which all too few brains
_
\\/ are accustomed' - First Lensman
"That's why you can buy a piece of shrink-wrapped software, and that's why the software runs. . . .
Doesn't he mean "That's why the software crashes"????
The day Microsoft creates a product that doesn't suck, it will be known as the Microsoft Vaccuum Cleaner!
"Microsoft is paying attention to the market and is looking at ways that would be consistent with things we do today to help our customers."
"... to help out customers out of money in their pocketbooks and put it in our own." is more like it...
The day Microsoft creates a product that doesn't suck, it will be known as the Microsoft Vaccuum Cleaner!
> Yeah, I think its a strange name, too.
Particularly in the middle of 1999.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Speaking of betas, did you see that OEMs are going to start shipping machines with W2Kb3 on them?
I thought it was funny enough when people paid for the priviledge of beta testing, but are they really going to buy computers running a beta OS? From a company whose shipping products are usually only beta quality?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
If you kid can't sleep, read him the source!
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
I for one would like to see these (really) Open Sourced. Not embrace-and-mutilate-the-definition Open Source, but something that even RMS would say is Free Software. :)
Windows 3.1/DOS whatever. It scales down really well, i.e. a 286. Might be interesting to see how much faster people could make it.
Windows NT 3.51. The last version of NT made before Cutler was sent out and yes-people (i.e. someone who never say 'no!' to a new feature) were brought in. (The yes-people IMO are responsible for the W2K problem - they added WAY too much new code for one release until it's almost as crufty as Win9x.)
WinWord 1.1. Runs quite well on a Win3.1 system, and dosen't support viruses either.
Win95/98. Although reading it might make one ill, it is what most people actualy use. It also even works unless you twist it the wrong way (which is a bit easy to do)
That's all I can think of at the moment.
A US trademark is only viable if you can defend it in court. Microsoft has a lot more money than the OSI.
The search effects the results.
What they are saying is that because they keep a stranglehold on the source, the software runs (read mental fine print) therefore, if there is an open source tree, say like GNU/Linux/Unix/etc. then the software will NOT run. It's all perfectly logical when you think about it (sarcasm driping from my fingers as I type)
And indeed this is not a problem with the os but with buggy applications, which are possible in any context.
FYI, a bus error is an unaligned memory access, usually one that's not aligned on a four byte boudary (although this is architecture dependent). So if you want to make your program bus error, try this:
I've had the pleasure of having netscape crash when I wasn't even using. Just last night I suddenly realized that my wmaker window list was much shorter than it had been a minute ago, and that this was due to all my netscape windows disspaearing.. And I wasn't even using it.
I was just thinking about it and when I first started using linux (spring 96) being able to still use netscape was a really big plus for me. I wouldn't have taken to it nearly as fast if I was stuck using lynx all the time.
But given that I think that the availability of a browser thats 'good enough' for most people has retarded the development of a free version. And the recent mozilla debacle seems to be even more a case in point: The biggest threat to free software is software that's _almost_ free. (I think RMS said that at some point)
Withought stooping to your level, I will simply suggest you look a little closer into the origins of mosaic.
And here I'd been remembering it for years as NMP*. Drat.
*Not My Problem
"I think the detail we give is significantly higher than our competitors, particularly for Windows 2000," Muth said.
There's no way that Muth is talking about competitors on the desktop - not with Apple's recent open source efforts.
So who is he talking about? commercial unicies?
say what you want, but in reading someone else's 10+ year old C code, the Hungarian notation helps a lot. Certainly vs. the [foo1..foon] naming convention
But... but... but... I thought Microsoft invented open source software.
Al Gore for prez baby, he invented the net you know.
My comments are NOT to be copied, republished, or redistributed by ANYONE without my express written permission. (Yes, that means you too ZDNet!)
Then why are you posting them in a public forum?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
A good deal of software will run on all the above mentioned platforms. Isn't that like saying Linux is fragemented...just look..
.99, Linux 1.00, Linux 1.01, Linux 2.0, Linux 2.0.34, Linux 2.0.35, Linux 2.0.36, etc... do I have to go through all 130+ iterations of 2.1.x?
Linux
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Try installing the latest service pack. It works WONDERS.
Yep, wonders like: breaking RAS, breaking IIS, breaking DAO...
Last time I called Platinum for IIS support (because it was soaking 100% CPU and answering requests only for static pages, not ASP), the first thing they said was "Install SP4 or hit the road."
SP4 wouldn't install.
Let us make a list, then, from personal experience:
- Windows itself; it usually takes 4 or 5 tries to install, not to mention the hours necessary for debugging the driver situation.
- Microsoft Office 97 Service Release 2. Maybe a third of installations result in measurable brokenness.
- Microsoft Internet Explorer. 65% of installs fail. Half of successful installs break the machine. Nuff said.
- Microsoft Internet Information Server 4.0 and Active Server Pages. If it installs, which it doesn't often do properly, there is inevitably something or other wrong, often the scripting engines. Want to see a sample broken site? Microsoft has one.
- Microsoft Java Virtual Machine. Can anyone get this to work?
- Games. They have about a 50% failure rate on average because of varying driver requirements.
- Drivers of all kinds, especially video drivers. In fact, the drivers that ship with Windows are usually broken!
That's quite a few just off the top of my head. With effort I'm sure I could find more applications that don't work out of the box. I think nearly everyone has a story about them!For example, Muth made the statement about any shrink wrapped software running on any computer running Windows, and that it is due to a central hold on the Windows source tree.
Note that a majority of my list is comprised of Microsoft products? Given that they have central hold of the OS source, wouldn't you expect that they could do better?
But I can tell any of you countless stories of how a rpm package may or may not run on any Linux installation.
I can think of maybe three or four times I've installed the wrong RPM. rpmfind has a way of coming up with TurboLinux or SuSE packages that don't work well with Red Hat, but they're easy enough to back out. In every case, I simply located the RPM for the distribution I was using (in these cases, Red Hat) and had no trouble at all using them.
Compare and contrast with two weeks of wrestling with Microsoft Option Pack 4.0 to get IIS installed on an NT server. Nothing shy of a reinstallation of NT would convince OP4 to install, since it seemed to fail to correctly register its DLLs during installation.
I don't know enough about Debian packaging to speak with any authority towards it, but I can't imagine it is much worse than RPM, and I've had nearly no problems at all with RPM, and certainly none that compare to the troubles I have when building and configuring Windows boxes (except for how badly rpm segfaults when you build it under pgcc. Maybe it's time to upgrade the compiler on the buildbox, eh?)
Actually, I think he's talking about MS's most feared competitors -- CP/M, MULTICS, and VMS (oh my!)
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
Just as was previously mentioned, you're thinking PATENT's are unregisterable with prior art.
"that empty demonstrations and half-measures won't do"
Oh! The press value!
--
some people here have no sense of humor!
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
It's all about the shareholders - since many of them are employees of Microsoft (stock options -- many employees of Microsoft are receiving good stock options, as opposed to great pay), it'd be devastating if their stock went to shit. The employees would be furious, and/or leave.
They'd do anything to get people to demand their stock. They even split it the other day. It might even be surmisable to perceive the possibility that the latest drop in stocks is accountable to Microsoft (et. al) selling shares elsewhere in the stock market, and buying up their own.
With the DOJ trial, press happy Linux, and the relative freedom of major vendors, I would not want to own Microsoft stock right now. To keep the price up, to keep investors from worrying (the slow/dumb ones worry, the smart ones have already moved on), Microsoft provides the billion $ buffer to keep the stocks from dropping a penny.
The buffer doesn't last forever. Serious consumer contempt exists, as does corporate distrust, for MS. You can't take their history of nearly pure corporate evil (in my humble, but correct, opinion), and turn it around on a dime. If it ever happens, it'll be down the road.
(Yes, that means you too ZDNet!)
ZDNet is full of idiots, they can't figure out that "Anonymous Coward" ISN'T a person, its a group of anon. posters. You think they would get it when they realized that A.C. argues with itself. Oh well, not everyone is as smart as we are.
BTW, anyone who would PAY John C. Dvorak to write the crap he writes is someone i would LOVE to work for. (easy $$)
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
Yeah, I think its a strange name, too.
Lotek---
Lets see.... with 600+ DLLs, most of which have (had) different versions, Windows is several orders of magnitude more fragmented than *nix.
(taken from ZDnet article - refering to the source that microsoft allows others to see)
:)
"I think the detail we give is significantly higher than our competitors, particularly for Windows 2000," Muth says
Exactly what competitors is Muth talking about here? Does this mean he doesn't see Linux as a competitor? Didn't he already say otherwise for the DoJ?
Yet again we see that Muth is at least partially BRAIN DEAD!
"I think the detail we give is significantly higher than our competitors, particularly for Windows 2000," Muth said.
and they would be........ oh yeah 1 vs. 0. Wow they give 1,000,000 times as much detail as their cometitors. Or is it 10^9, ahhh just make up a number.
+&x
You have a different definition of "Open Source"? Fine, I have a different definition of "Windows". After all, the word "windows" is a common english word -- much more common than "open source". I have windows in my house. I have windows in my car.
Therefore, I am going to create a window manager for free operating systems and call it, "windows". By your own logic, you can't stop me. There are many definitions of "windows" and my software just happens to use a different one.
This is "Embrace and Extend 101". It's the same tactic that MS used with Java. Embrace your threat ("open source"), then extend it with your own proprietary stuff (highly restrictive licenses). Tell the public you're just trying to "make it better" by destroying the standard.
/* Ok, my rant's over. I'll go back into "impartial observer" mode now. */
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
By showing that the phrase 'open source' simply means 'open source' perhaps ESR will lose his battle to popularize Free software by hiding the freedom associated with it.
There's nothing ESR can do to stop their usage of the term, and in this case, Microsoft is actually correct.
Not only that, but can you imagine the frankenstein a legion of MS hackers would
come up with {{shudder}}
Jeeeeesus Christ in a sidecar.
When are you guys going to grow up?
The idea that "Linux has good coders working on it, MS has shit coders" holds no water whatsoever. It's just a vague attempt at deluding yourselves to make you feel smart.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Let's see: Win95, Win98, WinNT, WinNT64, Win2k
WinCE...
Oh... I see, you're quoting Nicholas Petreley... how cute.
Windows 95->Windows 98. For DOS compatibility, mainly. (95 is obsolete, so in this debate it's a red herring)
NT->NT2K->NT64. You don't care about DOS compatibility/direct hardware access too much.
CE -> Embedded systems/small form factor systems.
I guess this just goes to show that when it comes down to it, you don't know JACK about Windows.
Because that sure as hell doesn't look fragmented to me. Disagree? Define fragmented.
Alternatively... if you think THAT's fragmented, try looking at all the different Linux distros... wow! talk about fragmentation!
Coming soon - pyrogyra
No need to.
I'm currently writing a chunk of one right at this minute.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Then why is their software so buggy?
I bet their quality control system consists of:
* Check if it breaks 3rd party apps: OK
Actually, why do you think there are so many bugs which have morphed to features? If it breaks 3rd party apps, we can't ship it. End of story.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
MS's OS division earns more money than some countries. Does anyone really think that MS would allow a RedHat or Caldera distro of Windows?
BZZZZZT Sorry!
Open Source != FREE.
Open Source != GPL.
GPL == Open Source.
Please, get a clue. Try reading up on the subject.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Forget about Linux distro's....
:)
Every damn system is different! We got libc5
libc6. Different widget sets, window managers,
hell even different windowing systems (MetroX,
XFree86 et al)
A lot of boxes run kernels so well tuned
you can't even boot it on another machine!
I guess is too bad it all works, after all thats what really counts.
And that, after all, is the point
Which is why claiming that Windows is "fragmented" is both pointless and not even strictly true.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Why should someone have to break the document up in the first place? Microsoft should put out a product that can handle it in the first place.
As I SAID, if you'd care to re-read my post with your eyes open this time, if I find that it's not happy with > 100 page documents (which in my experience it is, but I didn't want to say so without double checking), then this is a possible workaround.
Everytime they relase a new Office Package, it gets bigger and bigger and shittier and shittier.
Hmmm... not seen that behavior myself. How about a repro case? Or do you just like throwing around baseless statements?
I wonder if we can go on war missions in the flight simulator that is hidden in excel 2000.
Jeesus. Someone puts a 20K (if not smaller) Easter Egg in a product, and you get your panties in a bunch.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Sure. It's called "right-mouse on the paperclip, and select the "disable paperclip" easter egg".
Or, in other words:
You can right-mouse to Hide it, and it'll stay away from that app until you hit the balloon icon.
Or, you could right mouse on it, select the "Choose Options" and take away some of its abilities. Then hide it.
And it will trouble you no more.
What amuses me is that someone was jumping up and down recently when someone came up with a script to disable the Assistant permanently. Funny thing is, if they'd done some exploring, they'd have found that they could have done it since the product was released.
Funny, eh?
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Oh. So *you're* the one who made a C++ compiler that generates code so bloated that a 20 line program cannot be compiled on a floppy disk.
You're not particularly bright, are you? As you could have seen just by clicking my name:
User Bio
User Interface controls developer for Visual Studio.
But it's SO MUCH MORE fun to slam around pointless insults, isn't it?
Not only that, but you're talking complete and utter bullshit. A 20 line program (such as Hello World, perhaps?) takes up 54k.
We stopped using 8" floppies a few years ago, sonny.
VisualStudio is an abomination. You should see the poor dupes at school trying to use it...their machines lock up 2 or 3 times before it will ever load successfully. Probably because the machines are pitiful P90s with 16 megs of RAM, and we all know that that's nowhere near anouth hardware to develop programs on, right?
Go away, Microsoft Boy.
Oh, sorry, I didn't realise I was treading in *YOUR* playground, asshole.
Fuck off, ignoramus.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Then use Star Office. Or KOffice. Or do you have similar problems with them?
You were decidedly sarcastic, arrogant and condescending too.
Or did you not write this?
Then perhaps you could tell me if Word 2000 will actually let me type a character at the end of a hundred page document on a Pentium 200, go have a cup of coffee, and have the character I typed display before I get back? Or maybe Microsoft hasn't noticed this problem (it's been around as long as Word for Windows) since its 200 MB bloatware office package mostly gets used by secretaries to type two page letters.
Not to mention the fact that this ^^^ has nothing to do whatsoever with me working on an app at MS... so quite how you segue'd into it, I have no idea.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Well, on the happy side, there isn't this problem in Win2k :)
On the sad side, I don't know of any fix for that for you -- sorry.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Windows NT Workstation. For serious users, right?
MS Visual C++ Professional. For serious users, right?
The NT machines in our high school labs choke and die on VC++. It's rather sad to see. And they're from the same company. That should dispel any ideas about 'lack of credit' and compatibility out of shrinkwrap.
Try installing the latest service pack. It works WONDERS.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Jeezus... you guys got all hot and heavy about that ZDNet article, didn't you?
:)
:)
The problem is that Open Source (as the term is used by 99% of the people on Slashdot) actually has multiple meanings -- there's the trademarked one, and there's the "Open Source == GPL" one, which is alas, completely and utterly *wrong* [Open Source is a superset of GPL].
However, let's go back to the context of the article:
The statement, signed by the president of the Open Source Initiative, among others, reminded Microsoft that open source code "open source is not magic pixie dust" and that "that empty demonstrations and half-measures won't do."
But Muth said the term "open source" has a variety of meanings, and the company's definition differs from the one used to describe Unix and the increasingly popular Linux - in which a worldwide community of developers are able to freely extend, modify and commercialize versions of the software.
"As a customer-service-driven organization, we're interested in any trend in the news. Open source is one of those trends. Like other software companies, we're monitoring those trends and are alert to seeking ways in which part of this idea might be of value to our customers," Muth said. "But we have absolutely no initiatives in this space to announce."
That said, Microsoft says it has, for the past five years, been licensing some or all of the underlying programming, or source, code to its Windows NT OS, as well as to its other software applications.
Differing definitions
But its definition of "open source code licenses" means making the technology available to only a select group of computer scientists, researchers and original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and engineering partners, who are offered the code under a set of restrictions that prohibit them from commercializing the technology in any way, Muth said. "They do not receive any intellectual property rights or rights to derivative works."
Now, there's always the possibility that I'm wrong, but this looks like some journo spinning it for shock value. ZDNet are a devil's advocate kinda place -- they always spin both sides of a story; this is why both the pro-MS and the anti-MS crowd point to it as an example of bias against their point of view
[and remember: there's always the possibility that I'm wrong here -- Ed Muth could be just a complete and utter muppet]
Problem 1: There's no actual quote from Muth on the "definition of Open Source" -- he's just stated as saying that "open source" has a variety of meanings -- now take it as a quote from someone who's not well versed on open source -- BSD and GPL are different "meanings" of Open Source. So, that's what he could be talking about.
Problem 2: The paragraph that starts out "Differing Definitions"... 'But its definition of "open source code licenses" means making the technology available to only a select group of computer scientists' -- this DEFINITELY looks like bad reporting to me. Look at the test that goes before it: "Microsoft says it has, for the past five years, been licensing some or all of the underlying programming...." -- sounds like the journo decided that this "licensing" must be what MS meant by open sourcing its stuff!
Which isn't the case -- I'm bettting Muth said something like "Sure, we're thinking about an Open Source release of Windows... however, we already license the source code to researchers / OEM's / etc... so why do we need to change that practice? The source is there if you need to get hold of it".
So, my guess is that ZDNet, bastion of factual reporting [sic] that it is, has fucked up once more...
Sure, there's no hard evidence either way on this (I could well be wrong, as I've said) -- but there's enough of us here at the Big Borg Cube On The Hill with linux/unix experience that some of it percolates through. Which is as it should be
Solution? You all need to read/get hold of a transcript of the interview before blowing your stacks in future. Or at the very least, take what you read with a pinch of salt.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Is the service pack shrink wrapped? Oh, and how much does it cost?
It's a free download, though I believe you can order it on a CD for shipping + cost.
Same as the Windows 98 service pack, when that comes out, from what I've heard -- download, or order it on a CD for shipping + cost.
Or pay an extra $10-$30 for the extra Win98 goodies.
Or pay $89 for a full install CD -- that is, for a brand new retail Upgrade version of Windows 98.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
While I cannot provide hard numbers, as I do not have any machines which use any Microsoft products and only use Solaris machines at school, I can provide the following evidence (albeit anecdotal to all of you, it is first hand to me):
:) By default though, it'll produce a whole swamp of debug output for the debugger. You can pare that down too -- so that it only produces symbols / line numbers instead. It should be possible to get it to compile stuff onto a floppy.
:) [I was spoiled by IDE's, but working @ MS has weaned me off it somewhat -- you can't use an IDE that you (or someone else) is in the middle of writing... well, not in the early stages!]
:)
:-)
/." post near the end of the index... I think I'm right about this, but I might not be.
I have seen two people attempt to compile simple, introductory C++ programs with VC++ and have it fail because there was insufficient space on the floppy they were using for compilation. *NOT* because of the final executable size, but because of the several 200-500k intermediate files left behind by the compiler. I cannot say what these files were (they didn't end in ".o") or what they did.
Hmmm... my guess is that it was the cache used by the IDE, the intermediate files and the debug databases. You can configure it down to produce a minimum of output, actually... or use it from the command line
Personally, I'd give all the people at the school some hard drive space, and a roaming account with a quota on it, and get them to use their space on the network... but that's just me
I have also seen students spend 30 minutes trying to figure out how to use VC++. You can't just open up a new source file, type and compile. Visual C++ may be the finest tool available for high-end Windows development - I wouldn't know - but it is completely unsuitable for use in this situation. Of course, this is not Microsoft's problem, but rather my school's. It does, perhaps, point out a problem with IDEs in general, IMHO.
Hmmmm... Yeahh... the solution to the problem is to create a Win32 Commmand Line project from the wizard, and use that for everything -- but I must admit it's not too hot for the uninitiated. Mind you, the next version will use a new shell, so things may change, and become easier.
As for the ad-hominem assaults, I apologize. That was uncalled for and I graciously accept your calling me an ignoramus. We tend to get hot-headed when things we love are threatened, ne?
*grins* In that case, I'll take it back. As a rule though, I tend to fight fire with fire; and I hate people prejudicing me because of my current employment.
Truce?
ps. see my "Death of Critical Thinking on
Coming soon - pyrogyra
So I exaggerated. So it's not "completely and utterly wrong"... but most people assume that "Open Source" EQUALS GPL, not "is a super set of".
There's a variety of open source licenses. Open source thus, to the lay person, usually means one of those licenses.
How many times do you say "I'm going to release my software as open source!", implicitly meaning under GNU? Should you be sued for trademark infringement? Because you're misrepresenting the Open Source definition; you're making it stricter than it really is.
Simon (NSFMSFT)
Coming soon - pyrogyra
So I exaggerated. So it's not "completely and utterly wrong"... but most people assume that "Open Source" EQUALS GPL, not "is a super set of".
There's a variety of open source licenses. Open source thus, to the lay person, usually means one of those licenses.
How many times do you say "I'm going to release my software as open source!", implicitly meaning under GNU? Should you be sued for trademark infringement? Because you're misrepresenting the Open Source definition; you're making it stricter than it really is.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
I know the feeling :)
Coming soon - pyrogyra
As I said - I might be wrong, but I believe that the reporter badly paraphrased what Muth was saying.
:)
See my other post for the dirt on what I think about your "Strike 1".
And as for:
Actually, as I have shown, your attempt at analysis here is not quite up to par with the standards that you proclaimed in the message's title. The solution thus is to read the article more carefully, rather than to attempt such a badly-done (likely due to personal bias) deconstruction.
And you don't have personal bias falling into this? I already said I might be wrong in my statements. But the possibility still exists that ZDNet screwed up in their reporting -- and the language used in those reports is enough to make me think it *was* screwed up. (Heck, I was a writer before I started coding for a living -- I've interviewed enough people myself in my time. In fact, it's things like these which is why I always tried to get my sources to read over the article before publication).
Until I see more evidence to the contrary (like a transcript), I'm sticking to my guns. Call me biased. Call me sceptical. Just don't call me after 3am; I like to sleep
Coming soon - pyrogyra
I don't work for M$ and never would. I find that a daily shower and peaceful contemplative moment suffice to cleanse myself (and my karma) of the stench that accumulates from using m$ products. What kind of pennance would you have to pay if you actually worked for them?
Speaking personally, none. My conscience is clear.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Consider the phrase, "If it compiles, ship it." Apparently, an M$ program/product manager was said to have told someone on his group just that (of course, that probably wasn't the first/last time). Gives you the ol' warm-fuzzies, doesn't it?
That's somewhat out of context. At all times, we try to have a shippable product ready to go out the door. ie. everything has to build, the functionality has to work to spec (or can be ripped without destroying the product), and we devs write our own test suites to make sure of this (and the testers punish our code using a number of methodologies as well).
The term you are recycling is half joke, half truth around here. If it compiles, ship it!!! (this comes from the fact that if you don't ship a product, it ain't a product). However, if what you ship doesn't work properly (ie. it compiles, but the functionality is all fubar) you haven't got a product either.
In other words, grand ideas are great for a product, but when it comes to the bottom line, if you can cut a few features and get the product out of the door -- and still have it worth buying -- then it's a reasonable tradeoff.
:)
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Well... I just took my novel out of storage, dusted it off, cut and pasted it into a document about 20 times, and started typing at various parts of the file.
Typing at the start of the file?
No slowdown.
Typing at the end of the file?
No slowdown.
Typing in the middle?
No slowdown.
128Mb of memory, Gateway G6-200, running Windows 2000 Professional Beta 3/RC1 and Office 2000.
So, I guess this "problem" has been fixed.
To be honest, I don't remember this "problem" existing in Office 97 or Word 6 either.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
And then charging your ass for a fix for software they made you pay for in the first place.
Name one MS product - just one - that you had to pay for a fix for.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
You know, I rarely hear Linux users or developers utter the word "workaround." Does M$ have this word trademarked so that other people can't use it without their permission? Or is it that other developers don't tolerate the concept of a workaround and instead fix the problem?
Visualize this situation:
You discover a bug in XXXX.lib, used by 1000's of programs the world over. Shipped with every RedHat distribution.
You tell RedHat.
Does RedHat:
1. Fix the bug?
2. Document the bug?
3. Release a new revision of the lib, and keep shipping the old one?
4. 2 and 3, but not 1.
I'm willing to bet that (1) will never occur. Why? Because it'd break all that software. Doh!
This is why workarounds are used.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Yup -- sounds like you're bitter alright. :-P
You know, I have *NO* idea how Word2k will operate on a 100 page document. But let's see, shall we? (Just got to finish installing Win2k, so please bear with me).
First of all -- how much memory, and what processor are *YOU* running so we can compare?
Secondly, if there are indeed still problems, as a workaround you can break up your document into chapters, or whatever, save them out as separate documents, and combine them in the Master Document view. Helps if your read the docs, you know.
Why am I replying to this? No idea. I work on Visual Studio, so Office2k is nothing to do with me.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Well lets see
Recently I've installed 5 clean NT & IIS4 & SQL 6.5 and MDAC updates, all on Compaq and Gateway boxes without *any* grief what so ever.
I've had friends who have had both Win98 and NT problems with Dells though, I've even had hardware suppliers say "You're plugging it into a Dell? Oh god"
Have you tried any other hardware, or are you stuck with a corporate buying policy?
Barry
Errr of course they admit it, compatibility with Windows 3.1, or even 95 programs isn't promised for NT, there's a security model in NT that will cause problems!
ok lets see
/*remember all those internet related bugs?*/ /*found the power of linux, and refused to work ever on windows*/
50 hours working in DOS for problems that should not have happened.
400 in windows 3.1
1000 in windows 95
0 in windows 98
that is 950 hours * 10 an hour (in mexico salaries are cheap)
that is about 9500 dolars
and i am not counting extra hours, spoiled weekends, etc etc etc...
how much money i own linux the because all of what i have learned, and how much i am going to earn?
hell i think if m$ never going to pay me back for all the waisted time, then they should force them to release their entire source code.
then maybe i would forget how much money they owe me.
Is there an easter egg where you
can go and kill the damned paperclip which
is so annoying?
I tried to install a copy of F-prot the other week.. not matter what I tried to do it kept coming up with the error 'file.xxx is not found, even though it's in it's own directory'
Turbo Pascal for Dos (horrible program) doesn't work on windows 98 on one of my friends machines..
A copy of x-com intercepter demo wouldn't run with a copy of directx which was newer.
I've only had one problem with a linux program and that was the new version of netscape it kept dying with a bus error whatever that is...
It doesn't always work..
On every copy i've used it comes back up
the next time I start any office app..
Same as the spell checker always defaults back to american spelling.
For some reason netscape seems to be
one of the buggiest applications
on linux..
I've crashed it dozens of times.
What if MS opens up even just a part of Windows and programmers around the world find bug after bug until they all realize what a horrible peice of crap it is.
People aregue, as much as it's worth, about the results of these bugs in app performance. It is hard, however, to argue about a real bug in the source.
I've never seen somebody lie so much to cover him and his companies arse. It's such a joke! I can't believe that people even listen to this guy. What was that, he was saying about how the current development model keeping the code from forking? BAH! They've got, what, 8 different versions of windows plus countless versions of DOS, and it is NOT all compatible! Where as linux you can pop one CD in, install the source code with your distro and you can run linux programs from the beginning of linux history and install on what, 10 different architectures with a certain degree of cross platform compatibility. It's amazing he can just lie like that and go to sleep at night, he must know that he's lying, I don't see how someone could be so stupid, geez! Okay, I'll stop now ;-) I'm not even going to go into all the other strategm's and lies he tells on a regular basis
>Nobody owns a trademark on the term "Open Source".
... [is a] Registered Certification Mark[s] of Software in the Public Interest, Inc....The Open Source trademark is managed by Eric Raymond on behalf of the free software community.
From the SPI Trademarks Page:
Open Source
I think that a "certification mark" is still protected from improper use. Unfortunately, the status of the trademark/certification mark appears to be uncertain because of a dispute between SPI and OSI, which publishes the open source definition. (You cited "prior use", which only applies to patents. Multiple trademarks may be granted for one term, if they are in unreleated fields.)
This message contains a misunderstanding of the situation. Virtually all system vendors who ship systems with NT installed get to look at the Microsoft source already. They just don't get to change anything (and then ship it) except that part called the HAL (hardware abstraction layer)
I believe Muth said as much in the article, that they give, er, license (money is usually involved) their source to people including system vendors and university types. They've done that in the past, they do that now, they'll continue to do that, AFAIK. I doubt that was what Ballmer was referring to.
"I see great things in baseball" - Walt Whitman
I really don't think we'll ever see MS open it's code. Even if they did, how much would it really benefit people? Would linux developers suddenly try to fix windows code so it was stable and everything they wanted? I doubt it. Or if they did that's a pretty fairweather friendship with Linux. Maybe new developers will help to improve windows, all the better if MS accepts the help, but does that mean that just because MS is open source and actually works we'd stop using Linux? I doubt that too.
Maybe if MS was open source it would level the playing field a little bit so Linux would be a bigger competitor, although MS still has a huge head start in desktop computers.
Then again, just because MS goes open source doesn't mean a single 3rd party or even MS application has to go open source so how much has really changed?
I'm a little new to most of these issues though, so I could be way off base. I appreciate any comments that might help me understand things better.
- Kas
--
This is simply the start of a planned FUD campaign against Open Source by Microsoft. First, they obsfucate the issue and attempt to redefine it.
...
Stay tuned
ha.
>You left out Windows 98, Second Edition.
:)
>Yeah, I think its a strange name, too.
Well, it could be a possible Year 2k fix, just call next year "year 1999, second edition"
A service pack for calanders would be an idea to stop all the delays. To still ship mid 1999, you just redfine when 1999 ends
Hmmm, Then the year 2036 issue could become the "year 1999 v5.6, SP4" problem!
--
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
Huh? "Open Source" is hardly an everyday conversational term. I never heard it before ESR came up with it. On the other hand, "Window" as a computer term (the W in WIMP) goes back way before MS Windows ever existed.
Xerox invented the Windowed UI (as well as bit-mapped displays, mice, ethernet..). Steve Jobs visited Xerox PARC and copied the Xerox Star to make the Apple Lisa (released in the early 80's), which was a flop but spawned the Mac. MS Windows came much later.
MS applications all the time install their own incompatible versions of DLLs that break other applications. And all your Win95 apps run on Win3.1 or WinNT do they?
And since when does *anything* work properly on Windows? NT 4.0 crashes all the time, and 5.0 promises to be even more buggy...
Linux may not be perfect, but I'm far happier with it than I ever was with Windows.
"I find it hard to believe that some of the best computer scientists in the world will want to do their work for free," he said. "Without a long-term technical road map,without multimillion-dollar test labs, someone wants me to believe these visionary programmers and developers will want to do the best work of their lives and then give it away. I do not believe in that vision of the future."
greed is not mutually inclusive to the human race. also, look what `working for free' did for linus's reputation, think he'd be earning what he is if not for linux?
Better yet, let's rename Redhat Linux to Linux NT!
An example would be Microsoft and Cascading Style Sheets. Surely it would be an interesting court battle but the fact remains, Microsoft owns the patent on the technology.
Another example is "Windows" itself. That word has been in the English language for thousands of years and prior use of it is well documented throughout that time. Who owns that trademark? Microsoft.
There was prior use of the term "window" in pre-Windows GUI's long before MS trademarked it.
You are placing WAY too much faith in the USPTO, they are notorious for giving patents/trademarks to even the most unworthy people.
Hehe well, ZDNet was just one of the most recent rags I've seen scarf up comments from here and post them in a story, many uncredited.
My sig is in jest for the most part. *grin*
A "public" forum does not mean my comments are public domain.
... it's mostly a joke anyway!
Damn this sig is ruffling some feathers
Try calling your software "microsoft" software.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Why would anyone want M$ source then?
.... as TOILET PAPER!
Source for an inferior product?
See how NOT to do things?
I don't get it.
I would like to see them release the source for the AARD code, but surely that's not going to be on the list. Judge ain't gonna like that one.
An then this quote from the article:
"As to commercial developers, Microsoft said it already makes limited parts of its OS source code, such as the code enabling it to build device drivers for the OS."
Haha, what a joke! We should thank the big evil on our bare knees that it has released code so that we can write drivers, huh? Well, thankx, but no thankx.
Anybody that has written a device driver for a Win32 platform will know how all of I don't know how many of their driver models really suck. When you consider that this is 'cleaned up' source code you get a picture of what the code looks like inside M$.
Anyways, it's the architecture that's important, and we all know that it's architecture that sucks (performance comparison will, and have, easily proof this).
I still hope they release it though.
I will print it all. Really! All of it!
And then I will use it for rest of my life
Breace.
2003: "In 1999 I created Open Source" - Al Gore
Um, yes I can give you lots of examples of products written for Windows not working out of the box or at all with some incarnation of the Windows OS. Usually this is due to hardware conflicts, conflicts with other installed software, etc. as opposed to actual problems with the OS, although there is lots of software that's written for Windows 95 that won't work with Windows NT or 3.1, etc.
A personal example: I purchased Mathematica 2.x a couple of years ago or so, only to find that the idiotic interprocess communication between the GUI and the Mathematica core executable wouldn't work under Win 95. I had to contact Wolfram for a patch. The patch they gave me didn't work. This went back and forth for weeks, and it never did get working properly.
Personally, I have found that much more of the production level (i.e. non-alpha, non-beta) Linux software works on installation than does the Microsoft stuff. I suppose the requirements in terms of library versions are somewhat more complicated sometimes, but I can think of lots of Windoze apps that have the same problems (I think I have 5 or 6 different versions of VB DLLs in my Windows system directory).
Wanna learn more about open source? Talk Back... Check this board out
Got shack?
ShackCentral Network
Worlds best gaming network!!!