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)
...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.
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!
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
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
--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.
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.
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
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.
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*
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?)