At first this seemed like a shortcoming of the search engine, but upon further pondering I realized that maybe it's actually a highly advanced system which has provided the entirety of accurate, relevant and useful results that can be found on the web for that specific query.
Sheesh, and Linux fans have a reputation for being touchy...
It's a joke--and I must say it was pretty good.
I don't see how the post is Offtopic, since the topic *includes* a Windows running robot. And troll doesn't make sense either (a troll on this story would be some flawed rant about Windows meant to incite honest Windows-folk and waste their time).
Thanks for the laugh. May you humorless, Windows mods one day laugh as well, and even venture out and try other OSs along with Windows (except in your robots, of course--watch the film and see if I'm not right).
Remember when Greenpeace and other eco-idiologists wanted to abort the Hygens-Cassini mission due to the Plutonium batteries because they might drop back on earth and contain TEH EVIL RADIOACTIVE PLUTONIUM which would kill seals and cute little children ?
Most of those who were against the launch did expect the mission to succeed without deploying plutonium in the atmosphere. Their complaint was that the odds that it *could* fail catastrophically were unacceptably high. These odds were increased by the fact that the Cassini-Huygens craft was also to make a close fly-by of the Earth on its journey as a means of gaining speed.
Now we're dealing with two times when failure could kill thousands of people.
Given that rockets fail, and probes crash into planets, their concern is something that *must* be addressed. NASA has already spread plutonium though the atmosphere due to failure, so this isn't theoretical (if somehow you think that only non-radioactive payloads fail in the atmosphere).
Given enough attempts, there will be an accident. When that happens, will taunting and pretending that you aren't driven by ideology (by claiming you are "SCIENCE" and they are "ECOIDEOLOGY") make things OK? Will you just shrug it off and say, "Huh. Well, accidents happen!" then oppose attempts at investigations into what went wrong and what the effects were?
I remember when lawsuits were settled with money, not monopoly propogation.
I doubt it. Pithy comments are all well and good, but I'd like you to point out one such case against a monopolist that you remember where money (and nothing else) was paid in restitution.
That's not what the guy said. He said that the punishments of the past worked against the monopoly, not propogating them, and that cash damages were paid in cash.
While I can't speak for cash damages, I know that IBM was (is?) prohibited from pre-announcing new products (thus they couldn't really promote new versions of OS/2, for example, before they were out), and AT&T was prohibited from selling computer software (thus Unix was semi-free until the next monopoly fiasco of AT&T which broke it apart and allowed them to market Unix).
This time it's absurd. It does a really poor job of punishing MS, and does nothing to stop them from further breaches. After all, what does MS have to fear? They'll have to give away some software which, btw, helps their marketshare?
The point of punishing a monopoly is to keep them from either a.) remaining a monopoly, or at the very least b.) stop them from continuing to abuse their monopoly status. This isn't punishment, it's encouragement!
Really, to take advantage of 3d desktops, we either need full immersive 3d ( alah, the 3d headsets, or perhaps holographic displays ),
Why? Your desktop *already* is 3D without any of those things. You have windows that overlap in a 3D hierarchy. Some OS's (such as OS X) make that 3D metaphor more explicit.
or the need to take a different perspective on computing then todays window'd concept. Really, what is the value of rotating a windowed view... does it really help you know what your document is, be seeing some strangely distorted side view of it?
It'll give you a better idea of which window it is than when you windowshade a window.
Often, when you aren't using a window, you want it out of the way, but you also want to be able to easily return to it when you want it. The Windows taskbar helps with this. The OS X dock helps with this. X11 WM's that have window lists help with this. Titlebars in windowshaded windows help with this. OS X's Exposé really helps a lot with this. Sun's 3D angled windows seem to fit in between windowshading and Exposé.
Also, Looking Glass is more than just angled windows. The goal is increased usability, and 3D is just another tool to that effect.
From a pure UI point of view, it is better than multiple desktops and multiple tabs, since they are both examples of modes (which are bad).
I don't think what you are calling a mode is really a mode. Modes are when the same window/app acts entirely differently, for example in vi where you have two modes in which the hjkl keys do different things, and you can't be in both modes at the same time. Tabs are just different documents, and virtual desktops is just an example of the desktop being dynamic (each virtual desktop does not generally act differently, it merely has different windows).
Even if we ignore (or cede) the question of whether those things are modes, modes aren't dogmatically bad, they are really just generally to be avoided. Modes do have their place. For example, in the real world the pencil has the mode of writing or erasing. In the virtual world, in the Gimp/Photoshop you have all sorts of modes the mouse takes on. Modes aren't bad, they are a valid UI ingredient. What's bad is using modes when they make things unnecessarily complex. They are good when they make complex/difficult things that you wish to do simpler/easier.
But mice were born in a 2D environment and that's what they're good at.
Until they invent and standardize a 3D 'gesturing' interface (think Tom Cruise in Minority Report, for example), the 3D desktop will remain without much practical value.
Why? The screen is still 2D. You don't need to move the mouse on the z-plane (inwards and outwards), to click on a window that is further away, or closer.
We already have 3D window systems, albeit very limited 3D. For example, aren't your windows overlapping, thus some are closer than others? Looking Glass doesn't break that metaphor, it just amplifies it some, utilizes it more fully, and makes it look far more impressive.
That's the problem with you 'requirements' types. Just because you can check off an item from a checklist, does not mean you've done it well.
GNOME and KDE bloat? Sure, you can check it off on the list, but you can run a full GNOME session in less than 128MB of RAM! Load a full suite of apps and you're up to 256MB. You call that bloat? Come on, bloat is when your disk thrashes on boot unless you have 512MB RAM! Bloat indeed, harumph!
Security holes in SSH, check? How many have there been in the last 3 years? Two? And how long did it take to fix them? WHAT? OVERNIGHT??? What you need is a security flaw in something like the browser, a flaw which you can't fix with any preference settings, and which isn't fixed by the vendor for months (years) on end. Now *that's* a real security flaw if I ever saw one. Now, if you *really* want that checkmark to be meaningful, don't actually fix the fundamental flaw, just patch that one variation of it so that it won't take more than two weeks for the next flaw to come up.
If *that's* the best you've got, you Open Source guys really give checklists a bad name!
People see the benefits of Linux as it being free. They don't always see the "more eyes/better code" side.
Which is the parent author's point. The MS license (even if it becomes/is truly Open Source), without the Open Source modeled community, won't work the same as the prototypical Open Source project.
Greed is a much more powerful tool.
Only for acquiring money, not for creating quality products. If you are guided primarily by "MINE MINE MINE!!!", why would you make something good for others? If you gave like for like, you'd not be as far ahead as you would if you gave inferior for superior, and the greedier you are, the wider you'll wish that inferior/superior gap to be.
Artifical barrier to whose entry? Microsoft's goal certainly isn't to deny as many developers as possible from developing on its platforms.
You're right, that's not their goal. Their goal is to make as much money as possible. By charging $995 (guided by their first goal), they are also, as a side-effect, raising an artificial barrier to entry for WinCE developers.
Additionally, one of the guiding philosophical ideals at MS is that MS wants to own and control as much as possible--both their own inventions, standards and technologies and the inventions, standards and technologies of others (historically, virtually every MS product was originally created by people outside of MS, and consider their "embrace and extend" of open standards, for example). By placing a large price tag on a product whose analog you get bundled with Linux and MacOS X, they are reminding you that *they* own it. By doing that, they help make sure it's natural for you to think that MS should own and control as much as they can acquire, and worse, to think that it's a *good* thing.
>You haven't really open sourced something if all you've done is contributed to another project.
Legally, you have.
Then you miss the whole point. There are a huge number of claims one can make that aren't true (regarding to how the person making the claim wishes you to comprehend them), but are true in a strictly technical sense.
By failing to enforce the difference, one concedes the issue and allows a lie to stand as truth.
For example, IBM could tell a potential customer that they fully support Linux. IBM would be literally false (they sell hardware that does not support Linux fully), but regarding what they mean, and what the customer understands them to mean, they would be telling the truth.
MS, when confronted by a customer who says they are considering going with IBM because they support Linux (the customer will likely have dropped the "fully", because the difference they see between MS and IBM is that IBM supports Linux and MS does not), the MS rep can say, "Oh, but we do support Linux. For example, we have a Unix Pack for Windows that allows interoperability with Unix, including Linux." While technically true, the meaning (as far as the customer is concerned) is false. However, if the customer considers, like you have, the technical meaning to be their guide, they will accept a falsehood at a truth--specifically that MS supports Linux (which will also leave them with the impression that this is similar to IBM supporting Linux).
You're obviously looking for reasons to criticize Microsoft.
You don't know me, friend. I'm attacking MS's SSI because it's being touted as though it's Open Source, and it isn't. The more people believe that it's a legitimate example of Open Source, the more damage they do (and it's no secret that MS both wishes to and profits from damaging the Open Source movement).
YES, SSI is crap. This we know.
Not everyone. I'm just trying to catch those who might now know SSI is crap.
But Microsoft IS moving in the right direction by using the CPL in some of their minor projects. If those projects are successful, perhaps they will release MORE CPLed source. After all, you can't just open everything overnight.
And I applaud their move--in proportion to the amount their actions are meaningful. One (or two, three, whatever) *minor* projects doesn't even come close to making up for their anti-OpenSource actions, such as claiming that it should be illegal for government to contribute to, or use, Open Source software, the funding of SCO, the funding of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, etc.
your comments are just empty criticism.
Saying so does not make it true. In fact, my criticism is quite valid. Once they do something meaningful, let's talk. Here's two easy ones, two things that would instantly help to turn MS's evil empire image around, would net them free (and enthusiastic) support from the Open Source community, provide a better product for their customers, and over all make the world a better place:
1.) Open the specs to SMB and donate code to the Samba team. There's no reason that Samba shouldn't be the primary codebase for the Windows file-sharing system.
2.) Open the MS Word doc format.
Those would be *real* Open Source contributions, and would help the customer (something MS claims is important to them) far more than keeping those two formats/protocols proprietary.
The fact that they won't shows their "Open Source" posturing is empty and meaningless. All it does is allow them to say, "Us attack Open Source? Are you serious? We *support* Open Source ourselves!" when the fact is it just helps 'em lie and spin the truth.
Me? I'll wait until they do something real, something with meaning--it doesn't have to be the two things I've mentioned, those are just helpful ideas. Until then it's business as usual from Microsoft, and I won't join the chorus praising the Emperor's New Clothes.
Stuff? How about "thing" then. Amend my above comment to "MS has only ever released one minor Open Source project" (or two things if there are two, or whatever). The overall meaning of my post does not change. SSI is a sham. Let them truly embrace Open Source--I don't mean that they have to release Windows or Office or anything, just simple things, like SAMBA and the Office document format.
Apple does well with mixing Open Source with proprietary software. At first they were derided for not quite getting Open Source, but they quickly fixed the problems and there are no substantial complaints that Cocoa/Quartz/Final Cut Pro/etc aren't Open Sourced.
I'll grant you WiX (thanks for the correction, btw), but I can't really count the rest. You haven't really open sourced something if all you've done is contributed to another project.
My criticism of the MS SSI stands (which is what all claims of MS "Open Source" projects, aside from WiX, have ever been to date).
Once again, damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Not quite. It's "Damned if they don't, and damned if they don't", because they haven't done what people think they've done. They haven't Open Sourced *anything*, they've only "Shared Sourced" some stuff.
This argument sounds familiar somehow. The counter-argument went something like: if you don't like the terms, don't use it.
The reason people are pointing out the trap in MS's devious "Shared Source Initiative" is that a lot of trusting people won't realize that they don't like the terms (ie: they fall for the trap), and will use it. Unlike your "let the buyer beware" attitude, some people actually don't like the idea of other people being scammed, and will voluntarily do something to help them before it's too late.
Microsoft finally takes a step in the right direction
They have done no such thing. The software isn't Open Source (the article has it wrong), it's "Shared Source" which is meant to get overly credulous people to think MS is making an overture of goodwill to the Open Source community, when what they are really doing is attacking it (as usual).
It's a bit surprising, but it looks like Microsoft is considering making some of its code open source.
Wrong! MS has never open sourced a single thing. They are "shared sourcing" it, which is not an Open Source license. MS is just attempting to confuse and dilute the term Open Source.
Here's MS's Shared Source Initiative page. This has nothing to do with Open Source. Netscape and Apple both began their Open Source initiatives with licenses that had similar (but not nearly as bad) license problems, and both have eagerly and earnestly worked with the Open Source community and changed their licenses to become truly Open Source.
MS is welcome to do the same, but they won't. Nice try Bill, but like always, you just don't get it.
I'm sure XP is out of the range of affordability for much of the world's population. Is that a bad thing? Some things are more expensive.
Generally, it *is* a bad thing that the people of the world can't afford what they want. In the case of MS software, I'll concede that it's a good thing, especially since Linux is free.
MS has costs associated with selling and supporting software that open source doesn't have. Pricing to meet those costs is a sound business practice, and as a Microsoft shareholder I'm glad they're not giving the stuff away.
Bullshit. MS doesn't need to charge a cent to cover the cost of producing and supporting their software--at least not for 10 years or whatever their cash reserves come out to covering once you do the math. They charge what they charge because they can, not because they have to. I'm not one to say they can't charge whatever they want, but I definitely won't reward them for doing so while their negligence allows a new worm to come out every two weeks, and their unsavory actions and outright lies serve only to suppress superior products and technologies.
I think it's a little obnoxious to automatically assume that because these people are receiving funds from Microsoft, their conclusions are hopelessly biased in its favor.
More obnoxious (using your term, I'd have been less abrasive) is to ignore history and think, "We don't know for *sure* that this is yet another instance (in an uninterrupted line of instances) of MS acting to leverage every bit of influence they can muster, regardless of any moral issues involved, so we must assume they have decided to be an honest bearer of goodwill this time."
What action has MS ever taken that would make you think they didn't hand over the money while saying, "We really like the work you do, we think the work you do is important--you know, defending the rights of the corporations over that of the individual and that cancerous open source software movement. Keep up the good work, we'd love to do more business in the future."
The solution is either bloody revolution every 20 years, or fascism.
Fascism? No, we'll just end up with Corporatism. The Republicans *love* corporatism, and they control the legistlative and executive branches, and are poised for taking the judicial branch. What's good for corporate America is good for everyone. Hooray!
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
Slashdot Mirror
Try searching for windows security
At first this seemed like a shortcoming of the search engine, but upon further pondering I realized that maybe it's actually a highly advanced system which has provided the entirety of accurate, relevant and useful results that can be found on the web for that specific query.
50% Troll and 50% Offtopic?
Sheesh, and Linux fans have a reputation for being touchy...
It's a joke--and I must say it was pretty good.
I don't see how the post is Offtopic, since the topic *includes* a Windows running robot. And troll doesn't make sense either (a troll on this story would be some flawed rant about Windows meant to incite honest Windows-folk and waste their time).
Thanks for the laugh. May you humorless, Windows mods one day laugh as well, and even venture out and try other OSs along with Windows (except in your robots, of course--watch the film and see if I'm not right).
Robots running Windows?
You could have put a warning, now we know the secret behind I, Robot.
Remember when Greenpeace and other eco-idiologists wanted to abort the Hygens-Cassini mission due to the Plutonium batteries because they might drop back on earth and contain TEH EVIL RADIOACTIVE PLUTONIUM which would kill seals and cute little children ?
Most of those who were against the launch did expect the mission to succeed without deploying plutonium in the atmosphere. Their complaint was that the odds that it *could* fail catastrophically were unacceptably high. These odds were increased by the fact that the Cassini-Huygens craft was also to make a close fly-by of the Earth on its journey as a means of gaining speed.
Now we're dealing with two times when failure could kill thousands of people.
Given that rockets fail, and probes crash into planets, their concern is something that *must* be addressed. NASA has already spread plutonium though the atmosphere due to failure, so this isn't theoretical (if somehow you think that only non-radioactive payloads fail in the atmosphere).
Given enough attempts, there will be an accident. When that happens, will taunting and pretending that you aren't driven by ideology (by claiming you are "SCIENCE" and they are "ECOIDEOLOGY") make things OK? Will you just shrug it off and say, "Huh. Well, accidents happen!" then oppose attempts at investigations into what went wrong and what the effects were?
I remember when lawsuits were settled with money, not monopoly propogation.
I doubt it. Pithy comments are all well and good, but I'd like you to point out one such case against a monopolist that you remember where money (and nothing else) was paid in restitution.
That's not what the guy said. He said that the punishments of the past worked against the monopoly, not propogating them, and that cash damages were paid in cash.
While I can't speak for cash damages, I know that IBM was (is?) prohibited from pre-announcing new products (thus they couldn't really promote new versions of OS/2, for example, before they were out), and AT&T was prohibited from selling computer software (thus Unix was semi-free until the next monopoly fiasco of AT&T which broke it apart and allowed them to market Unix).
This time it's absurd. It does a really poor job of punishing MS, and does nothing to stop them from further breaches. After all, what does MS have to fear? They'll have to give away some software which, btw, helps their marketshare?
The point of punishing a monopoly is to keep them from either a.) remaining a monopoly, or at the very least b.) stop them from continuing to abuse their monopoly status. This isn't punishment, it's encouragement!
Really, to take advantage of 3d desktops, we either need full immersive 3d ( alah, the 3d headsets, or perhaps holographic displays ),
... does it really help you know what your document is, be seeing some strangely distorted side view of it?
Why? Your desktop *already* is 3D without any of those things. You have windows that overlap in a 3D hierarchy. Some OS's (such as OS X) make that 3D metaphor more explicit.
or the need to take a different perspective on computing then todays window'd concept. Really, what is the value of rotating a windowed view
It'll give you a better idea of which window it is than when you windowshade a window.
Often, when you aren't using a window, you want it out of the way, but you also want to be able to easily return to it when you want it. The Windows taskbar helps with this. The OS X dock helps with this. X11 WM's that have window lists help with this. Titlebars in windowshaded windows help with this. OS X's Exposé really helps a lot with this. Sun's 3D angled windows seem to fit in between windowshading and Exposé.
Also, Looking Glass is more than just angled windows. The goal is increased usability, and 3D is just another tool to that effect.
BTW, on a slightly more serious note, there is a spiffy freeware 3D Mac OS X file browser called, appropriately, 3DOSX (screenshots page).
Well duh. Of course there's a 3D file browser. OS X is Unix, after all.
In fact, this shot is nothing more than the background!
Oh, sweet! Where can I download Looking Glass?!!! I NEED IT NOW!!!
From a pure UI point of view, it is better than multiple desktops and multiple tabs, since they are both examples of modes (which are bad).
I don't think what you are calling a mode is really a mode. Modes are when the same window/app acts entirely differently, for example in vi where you have two modes in which the hjkl keys do different things, and you can't be in both modes at the same time. Tabs are just different documents, and virtual desktops is just an example of the desktop being dynamic (each virtual desktop does not generally act differently, it merely has different windows).
Even if we ignore (or cede) the question of whether those things are modes, modes aren't dogmatically bad, they are really just generally to be avoided. Modes do have their place. For example, in the real world the pencil has the mode of writing or erasing. In the virtual world, in the Gimp/Photoshop you have all sorts of modes the mouse takes on. Modes aren't bad, they are a valid UI ingredient. What's bad is using modes when they make things unnecessarily complex. They are good when they make complex/difficult things that you wish to do simpler/easier.
But mice were born in a 2D environment and that's what they're good at.
Until they invent and standardize a 3D 'gesturing' interface (think Tom Cruise in Minority Report, for example), the 3D desktop will remain without much practical value.
Why? The screen is still 2D. You don't need to move the mouse on the z-plane (inwards and outwards), to click on a window that is further away, or closer.
We already have 3D window systems, albeit very limited 3D. For example, aren't your windows overlapping, thus some are closer than others? Looking Glass doesn't break that metaphor, it just amplifies it some, utilizes it more fully, and makes it look far more impressive.
That's the problem with you 'requirements' types. Just because you can check off an item from a checklist, does not mean you've done it well.
GNOME and KDE bloat? Sure, you can check it off on the list, but you can run a full GNOME session in less than 128MB of RAM! Load a full suite of apps and you're up to 256MB. You call that bloat? Come on, bloat is when your disk thrashes on boot unless you have 512MB RAM! Bloat indeed, harumph!
Security holes in SSH, check? How many have there been in the last 3 years? Two? And how long did it take to fix them? WHAT? OVERNIGHT??? What you need is a security flaw in something like the browser, a flaw which you can't fix with any preference settings, and which isn't fixed by the vendor for months (years) on end. Now *that's* a real security flaw if I ever saw one. Now, if you *really* want that checkmark to be meaningful, don't actually fix the fundamental flaw, just patch that one variation of it so that it won't take more than two weeks for the next flaw to come up.
If *that's* the best you've got, you Open Source guys really give checklists a bad name!
People see the benefits of Linux as it being free. They don't always see the "more eyes/better code" side.
Which is the parent author's point. The MS license (even if it becomes/is truly Open Source), without the Open Source modeled community, won't work the same as the prototypical Open Source project.
Greed is a much more powerful tool.
Only for acquiring money, not for creating quality products. If you are guided primarily by "MINE MINE MINE!!!", why would you make something good for others? If you gave like for like, you'd not be as far ahead as you would if you gave inferior for superior, and the greedier you are, the wider you'll wish that inferior/superior gap to be.
Artifical barrier to whose entry? Microsoft's goal certainly isn't to deny as many developers as possible from developing on its platforms.
You're right, that's not their goal. Their goal is to make as much money as possible. By charging $995 (guided by their first goal), they are also, as a side-effect, raising an artificial barrier to entry for WinCE developers.
Additionally, one of the guiding philosophical ideals at MS is that MS wants to own and control as much as possible--both their own inventions, standards and technologies and the inventions, standards and technologies of others (historically, virtually every MS product was originally created by people outside of MS, and consider their "embrace and extend" of open standards, for example). By placing a large price tag on a product whose analog you get bundled with Linux and MacOS X, they are reminding you that *they* own it. By doing that, they help make sure it's natural for you to think that MS should own and control as much as they can acquire, and worse, to think that it's a *good* thing.
>You haven't really open sourced something if all you've done is contributed to another project.
Legally, you have.
Then you miss the whole point. There are a huge number of claims one can make that aren't true (regarding to how the person making the claim wishes you to comprehend them), but are true in a strictly technical sense.
By failing to enforce the difference, one concedes the issue and allows a lie to stand as truth.
For example, IBM could tell a potential customer that they fully support Linux. IBM would be literally false (they sell hardware that does not support Linux fully), but regarding what they mean, and what the customer understands them to mean, they would be telling the truth.
MS, when confronted by a customer who says they are considering going with IBM because they support Linux (the customer will likely have dropped the "fully", because the difference they see between MS and IBM is that IBM supports Linux and MS does not), the MS rep can say, "Oh, but we do support Linux. For example, we have a Unix Pack for Windows that allows interoperability with Unix, including Linux." While technically true, the meaning (as far as the customer is concerned) is false. However, if the customer considers, like you have, the technical meaning to be their guide, they will accept a falsehood at a truth--specifically that MS supports Linux (which will also leave them with the impression that this is similar to IBM supporting Linux).
Oh shut up.
You first, Starks.
You're obviously looking for reasons to criticize Microsoft.
You don't know me, friend. I'm attacking MS's SSI because it's being touted as though it's Open Source, and it isn't. The more people believe that it's a legitimate example of Open Source, the more damage they do (and it's no secret that MS both wishes to and profits from damaging the Open Source movement).
YES, SSI is crap. This we know.
Not everyone. I'm just trying to catch those who might now know SSI is crap.
But Microsoft IS moving in the right direction by using the CPL in some of their minor projects. If those projects are successful, perhaps they will release MORE CPLed source. After all, you can't just open everything overnight.
And I applaud their move--in proportion to the amount their actions are meaningful. One (or two, three, whatever) *minor* projects doesn't even come close to making up for their anti-OpenSource actions, such as claiming that it should be illegal for government to contribute to, or use, Open Source software, the funding of SCO, the funding of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, etc.
your comments are just empty criticism.
Saying so does not make it true. In fact, my criticism is quite valid. Once they do something meaningful, let's talk. Here's two easy ones, two things that would instantly help to turn MS's evil empire image around, would net them free (and enthusiastic) support from the Open Source community, provide a better product for their customers, and over all make the world a better place:
1.) Open the specs to SMB and donate code to the Samba team. There's no reason that Samba shouldn't be the primary codebase for the Windows file-sharing system.
2.) Open the MS Word doc format.
Those would be *real* Open Source contributions, and would help the customer (something MS claims is important to them) far more than keeping those two formats/protocols proprietary.
The fact that they won't shows their "Open Source" posturing is empty and meaningless. All it does is allow them to say, "Us attack Open Source? Are you serious? We *support* Open Source ourselves!" when the fact is it just helps 'em lie and spin the truth.
Me? I'll wait until they do something real, something with meaning--it doesn't have to be the two things I've mentioned, those are just helpful ideas. Until then it's business as usual from Microsoft, and I won't join the chorus praising the Emperor's New Clothes.
Beep. Wrong.
They have stuff under the CPL, such as WIX.
Stuff? How about "thing" then. Amend my above comment to "MS has only ever released one minor Open Source project" (or two things if there are two, or whatever). The overall meaning of my post does not change. SSI is a sham. Let them truly embrace Open Source--I don't mean that they have to release Windows or Office or anything, just simple things, like SAMBA and the Office document format.
Apple does well with mixing Open Source with proprietary software. At first they were derided for not quite getting Open Source, but they quickly fixed the problems and there are no substantial complaints that Cocoa/Quartz/Final Cut Pro/etc aren't Open Sourced.
I'll grant you WiX (thanks for the correction, btw), but I can't really count the rest. You haven't really open sourced something if all you've done is contributed to another project.
My criticism of the MS SSI stands (which is what all claims of MS "Open Source" projects, aside from WiX, have ever been to date).
Once again, damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Not quite. It's "Damned if they don't, and damned if they don't", because they haven't done what people think they've done. They haven't Open Sourced *anything*, they've only "Shared Sourced" some stuff.
This argument sounds familiar somehow. The counter-argument went something like: if you don't like the terms, don't use it.
The reason people are pointing out the trap in MS's devious "Shared Source Initiative" is that a lot of trusting people won't realize that they don't like the terms (ie: they fall for the trap), and will use it. Unlike your "let the buyer beware" attitude, some people actually don't like the idea of other people being scammed, and will voluntarily do something to help them before it's too late.
Microsoft finally takes a step in the right direction
They have done no such thing. The software isn't Open Source (the article has it wrong), it's "Shared Source" which is meant to get overly credulous people to think MS is making an overture of goodwill to the Open Source community, when what they are really doing is attacking it (as usual).
It's a bit surprising, but it looks like Microsoft is considering making some of its code open source.
Wrong! MS has never open sourced a single thing. They are "shared sourcing" it, which is not an Open Source license. MS is just attempting to confuse and dilute the term Open Source.
Here's MS's Shared Source Initiative page. This has nothing to do with Open Source. Netscape and Apple both began their Open Source initiatives with licenses that had similar (but not nearly as bad) license problems, and both have eagerly and earnestly worked with the Open Source community and changed their licenses to become truly Open Source.
MS is welcome to do the same, but they won't. Nice try Bill, but like always, you just don't get it.
I'm sure XP is out of the range of affordability for much of the world's population. Is that a bad thing? Some things are more expensive.
Generally, it *is* a bad thing that the people of the world can't afford what they want. In the case of MS software, I'll concede that it's a good thing, especially since Linux is free.
MS has costs associated with selling and supporting software that open source doesn't have. Pricing to meet those costs is a sound business practice, and as a Microsoft shareholder I'm glad they're not giving the stuff away.
Bullshit. MS doesn't need to charge a cent to cover the cost of producing and supporting their software--at least not for 10 years or whatever their cash reserves come out to covering once you do the math. They charge what they charge because they can, not because they have to. I'm not one to say they can't charge whatever they want, but I definitely won't reward them for doing so while their negligence allows a new worm to come out every two weeks, and their unsavory actions and outright lies serve only to suppress superior products and technologies.
I think it's a little obnoxious to automatically assume that because these people are receiving funds from Microsoft, their conclusions are hopelessly biased in its favor.
More obnoxious (using your term, I'd have been less abrasive) is to ignore history and think, "We don't know for *sure* that this is yet another instance (in an uninterrupted line of instances) of MS acting to leverage every bit of influence they can muster, regardless of any moral issues involved, so we must assume they have decided to be an honest bearer of goodwill this time."
What action has MS ever taken that would make you think they didn't hand over the money while saying, "We really like the work you do, we think the work you do is important--you know, defending the rights of the corporations over that of the individual and that cancerous open source software movement. Keep up the good work, we'd love to do more business in the future."
Where's -1 Naive?
Fascism? No, we'll just end up with Corporatism. The Republicans *love* corporatism, and they control the legistlative and executive branches, and are poised for taking the judicial branch. What's good for corporate America is good for everyone. Hooray!
Oh fuck.
First, SPA "License Inspectors" are sent in. All they find is Free Software. Undaunted, Bill Gates sends in his own lawyers...
Then it's a year later and the WMA's still haven't been found.