The courts are wrong here and it does nothing but empower criminals and reduce the avenues of justice for the average citizen. This type of weakening of police powers is precisely why groups like the Yakuza are able to get away with so much in Japan. By skirting the very edges of the law, they are able to remain untouchable while those they terrorize are very likely to overstep their legal bounds due to the inability of the police to successfully remove the true criminals.
Here is the thing no one is a criminal yet. That is a foundation of our legal system. People are innocent until proven guilty. So this doesn't reduce the power of police over criminals. It puts in check the power of the executive branch with regards to citizens who are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This doesn't prevent the police from using GPS trackers. It makes sure their use is checked by the judicial system.
Your bad analogy about a crime gang in Japan is irrelevant. We're talking about the United States not Japan. Japan's legal system might let suspects skirt their system and the US might let suspect skirt theirs, but this decision has nothing to do with the Japanese legal system.
I think it was the developers responsibility to ensure they were in compliance with licensing. Google sent them legal notice to stop distributing their applications. If the developer(s) want to continue to distribute Google apps then they need to strike a deal with Google.
How is what they did evil? Is anyone directly harmed? How does this benefit Google but not the end user? Can't users easily get Google Apps without this app?
I think it's a bit of a stretch, if not disingenuous, to say that this illustrates Google imposing draconian control over app development in the same way Apple is accused. They are definitely encouraging community development just not with regards to illegally distributing their own apps. They are discouraging people from distributing their software without a license. I don't see how you could confuse the two. Do you want your software distributed without a licenses? Do you want your clsoed proprietary software code distributed without your permission? Do you want your GPL code modified and used, possibly in a closed app, without a license and without the code being available?
This really has nothing to do with promoting or discouraging development on their platform, although I'm sure those that don't like this will spin it that direction. This is, like I said in my parent post, about professionalism, respect, and proper procedures.
Developers should care about why Google is doing this. How would you feel if people were distributing your apps or project without a license possibly in violation of that license? It's irresponsible of those developers not to abide by the licensing agreements. If these developers were distributing GPL apps without a license I'm pretty sure the FSF would be breathing down their necks too. It's a matter of respect and professionalism. Those developers are out of line.
Yes, I did. There's no need to be a smart ass dick head (I noticed you posted anonymously because you can't stand behind what you say if you're going to spout off like an asshat). It does render properly if you force it. That's not really a mystery since we already know Chrome can pass acid3. My point is that in normal browsing it won't render unless the site calls it. If you're going to preface every uri with "cf:" you might as well just install Chrome. The only advantage that will give you is that UA will still report as IE8 but will use Chrome Frame to render.
It's somewhat significant because it's easy to get the impression that just by installing Chrome Frame you will now be rendering through that as a default.
IE8 still fails the Acid3 test even with Google Chrome Frame installed. I was curious and tested it out. Chrome Frame doesn't take over full rendering from IE8 unless the site includes a meta tag to use the Chrome Frame. Here is a link to the Chrome Frame page [code.google.com] (chocked full of good info).
Actually the ribbon style is not built for eye candy but rather for usability.
This is actually a point of contention among usability engineers.
Everything is a point of contention among usability engineers. Look at KDE vs Gnome or the difference in application interfaces between Mac and Windows.
Doesn't look like it captures the OSS development spirit, to me...
But it almost perfectly captures Microsoft's view on the software market.
That's true but it also shows a pretty significant shift in their view of the software market. Previously their public support has been against nearly any form of open source.
I think there is a big difference between open management or open development (on a project level) and open source code projects. I don't Microsoft's management philosophy will ever align to the FSF ideas of open development, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate their contribution. I think this is an important step because before their ideas about open source projects and code can change they have to accept that this is a valid philosophy. This is that step.
If the fix was so easy then the death of Jack Louis wouldn't have hampered the patch process. TFA mentions that even though he was in good contact with others and kept good notes his death caused a big slowdown in finishing the research and patch.
It's always easy to find other peoples bugs and go on about how easy it would be to fix it. It only gets hard when you're coding the bugfix and the obvious solutions aren't fixing the problem.
Yes, you're right you don't have to use the software. You do have to remove it and/or deal with any registry and file associations and redirects setup by the OEM. There is a decent chance you will have it go through first run before going "WTF" and removing it. OEM software installs always seem to leave a bunch of junk in the registry and in userland directories. I would rather they didn't leave a bunch of cruft laying about and screw with file associations that's all.
The FT article (short and worth reading) is basically saying that Chrome's adoption is low and they are making OEM deals, advertising, and doing a "crapware" bundle with RealPlayer install. According to Google they are "frustrat[ed] at what they consider a lack of interest among internet users about browsers." and want to push awareness. According to Google they want to push browser development and competition:
"It's not so important everyone uses Google Chrome, it's more important browser technology evolves as fast as it can." said Mr Rakowski. Chrome set new records in terms of its speed, prompting a race among rivals to boost the performance of their own software.
The "browser snub" headline is just an attention grabber by the Register (go figure). I don't see this being much different than any other OEM making deals with third party application vendors to install and use their software as a default.
The thing I really don't like about this is the OEM deciding what third party software I use. If they are going to fool around here they should offer the default OS software or even better a list of options. I like to use Firefox. I would much rather install it by dowloading from IE than having some random third party vendor. I like Chrome, but I don't trust Google and I don't like how their software is installed along with their updater. I also hate the crapware opt-outs I have to watch for although to be fair vendors other than Google participate in that practice (Sun, Microsoft, Yahoo!, etc).
Even FF 3.5 doesn't render the graphic properly for me. In the legend the type below the line "For legibility all 'streets' and 'st' markers" is garbled. Why doesn't this work 100% of the time? Isn't there a standard (W3C, etc) that could be referenced?
What you, and gnapster, say is true. I don't think it's the same as phone, cable, or internet. I think it's also a bit more than just modifying a piece of hardware. There is a service and system tied to that console.
I understand that the console makers want to protect their business model, and I'm fine with that to a degree, but I don't necessarily think the crime and punishment fit the act here. Game development seems a bit more spendy than standard desktop or web application development (although I guess that is subjective to the project and its scope). So there has to be a reasonable middle ground between looking the other way and long term imprisonment with regards to protecting the investment and punishing those provide a service to rip off the business.
We've never been able to always do exactly what we want with all the hardware we have. There was a time when we didn't really even own our own phones and modifying them to take advantage of the phone system was a criminal offense. This is a lot different from tinkering with your desktop or laptop. In this case you're tinkering with a paid service where the revenue model and possibly the integrity of the system could be compromised by this. I think this is more akin to modifying hardware to steal cable or network service.
What? How about taking your own advice Anonymous Coward. I see you post on every feckin story I read. You always take this tough guy stance and say exactly what you mean without fear of karma or being modded to oblivion. I wish you would just shut the fuck up and quit posting in every article I read..
Do you even know what you're talking about or are you making up a bunch of spin that will make you sound good?
When you install Win 7 you can repartition, format the partitions, and select the partition you want to install to. You can dual boot if you choose and it's no more difficult to get running than it is with Linux and GRUB (or your other favorite bootloader). The ease of setting up dual-booting is subjective but that is my opinion.
So why do you have to make up weird stuff that gives you some illusion that you're winning a non-existent race? Isn't the innovation here enough, even though it's been done in some ways with other systems (BSD and rPath for examples), that the accomplishment stands on it's own without having to be a secret weapon to knock out the other guy?
Look, there is no "win". Linux will never destroy Microsoft and Windows and Microsoft will in no way ever eradicate Linux and the open development community. It's just not going to happen. There are enough people that like different platforms that no one platform will ever rule.
This is because there are many people it seems, including slashdot itself, who don't want Microsoft to comply with the GPL. They don't want Microsoft to encourage open development. There is blood in the water and it's a "news" feeding frenzy. There is no win. There is nothing Microsoft can do that will make them happy. If Microsoft released their entire codebase, re-licensed under GPL 3, tomorrow it still wouldn't be good enough. If Microsoft went away tomorrow it wouldn't change how some people feel; they would just find another "evil entity" as the new target.
What purpose is there is trying to work together, promote interoperability, and offer choice? I'm beginning to see that there is no reason. This isn't about open software and making sure developers aren't shut out. It's about revenge and crushing the opponent so they can be on top. It is disappointing to say the least.
Unless "approved" means "gets through the lameness filter," that's nonsense. Anyone can post. It's just that if people don't consider what you post acceptable, they'll mod you down. That's life, live with it. I've gotten things moderated down which I considered good jokes. So what, maybe the jokes were not really so good, maybe the moderators just didn't get them, whatever. The worst which could happen would be that I lose my karma bonus (which I don't normally use anyway). Oh, and Adblock might get some work if I lose my good karma.
Just An Opinion: Actually I've found that if people don't agree with you they will mod you to oblivion with flamebait or troll. Sometimes people do mod down over-rated, flamebait, or troll because someone is doing just that but just as often it's used to censor and/or burn the posters karma. I mean how often do you see some fairly insightful posts by AC because people don't want to risk their karma in a heated topic?
The problem here is that they are delivering fluff content for pay that used to be delivered for free, in game, just for purchasing the game and buying a subscription. Now a subscription doesn't get you everything. It's just a door opener to spend more money. The player is basically paying for content twice.
The other problem is the "slippery slope" dilemma. I hate the whole slippery slope argument in general, but I think it can apply here. If they see fluff as a viable model for MTs where does that stop? What other content will they try and sell as an MT that they used to provide as part of the purchase and sub? When will they decide that some "fluff" items are 'special edition' and only available in the store as a micro-transaction?
Trust is neither required nor desired in business. Much more reliable to trust persuit of self-interest. Business is not family life. There are no bonds of affection. Delusional to pretend there are.
That's crap. Trust is essential in smooth business dealings. You can do business with a business partner you can't trust, but it's a hundred times harder. The contracts get horrendously long and complicated, the oversight creates huge overhead and the experience ends up being really unpleasant for all of the people involved. And if you end up in court... that's a huge time and money sink.
So businesses like to establish long-term, amicable relationships with business partners exactly so that they can rely on trust, to loosen up the contracts, smooth out the communication and be able to have confidence that the other party will make good on their promises. Good businessmen understand the limits of trust, but they also understand its advantages. Why do you think business partners eat together, play golf together, etc.? It's precisely to build personal human-to-human relationships to build the trust that's necessary to doing business together effectively. Even better is the experience of doing business together for years, with a joint understanding that both sides will benefit if the relationship continues to be healthy.
This notion is taken to an extreme in the Japanese "Keiretsu", but it's a common feature of nearly all businesses that are successful in the long term. Partnerships matter, and they're built on trust.
I think this is a load of crap. Trust is built on well defined business contracts and agreements. Partnerships matter, and they're built on mutually aligned self-interests.
Of course you will be modded +5 Insightful, Interesting, and most importantly +5 Loved by the blind zealots. You post of bunch of "I knew it all along" tripe to support your hate and everyone loves you for it. You can't stand the fact that Microsoft is doing the right thing so you will spin your "facts" any way you can to start the FUD wheel moving.
I know I'm headed for mod hell and Karma oblivion , but here goes. You should be happy that a company that has so closely embraced closed/proprietary licensing is doing the right thing by honoring the GPL as they should. They could have chosen any number of wrong directions, but they chose the right one. Their motives for doing so are irrelevant.
If you think the motives for IBM, Oracle, Sun, or even RedHat for honoring and promoting the GPL are anything other than financial or self-interested you are seriously deluding yourself. This isn't a religion to those companies. It is a tool that they leverage to try and increase their dominance and profits in the technology sector. The fact that all those companies have closed, restrictive, or proprietary solutions should testify to the fact that they are concerned about their position and profits only. Microsoft is doing the same thing. They want their Hyper-V to be successful. They used GPL components, whether in hindsight or foresight, and chose to GPL their drivers as the best way to see their product succeed.
If anything this should be good news for FOSS zealots everywhere because it shows that Microsoft now considers the GPL a viable route to see product success. It is a fairly huge paradigm shift. Unfortunately there will be people who are more concerned with Microsoft failing than they are with corporate giants moving in the right direction. It limits you.
Moodle is a preexisting OSS project, this is just a plugin for making Windows Live web services work with it. This does suggest that MS doesn't think that they can kill moodle; but it isn't their offering.
Actually, it might lead to courses that use Moodle (my university does) to require Windows Live Messenger for each student. That means that Linux users, who otherwise could use the Moodle coursework, will now not be able to interoperate fully with the rest of their coursemates. This seems to me to be adding an option for a _dependency_ on Windows to Moodle. I am afraid that many courses will exercise that option.
Or it might mean that those students who like to use Live services can have an easier integration into Moodle. Many institutions use Moodle and better integration with other apps and services is always better. I would hope that Google would also provide better integration tools as well. More choice, open license, easier for faculty and students is a win. A course is more likely to require Windows, Linux, OSX based on course materials and required applications than on some random choice of email providers.
They're just aliases so people can use the terms they're comfortable with. Haven't you ever made your own custom aliases in Bash? It didn't invalidate the old ones. No one new using a system with custom aliases gets confused because they can still use the default terms they are used to. I love that Powershell makes these aliases for you. It makes using the shell on Windows much more comfortable for me.
Slashdot Mirror
You had to buy it back then didn't you? I never used it back then. How was it clearly better other than mouse gestures?
The courts are wrong here and it does nothing but empower criminals and reduce the avenues of justice for the average citizen. This type of weakening of police powers is precisely why groups like the Yakuza are able to get away with so much in Japan. By skirting the very edges of the law, they are able to remain untouchable while those they terrorize are very likely to overstep their legal bounds due to the inability of the police to successfully remove the true criminals.
Here is the thing no one is a criminal yet. That is a foundation of our legal system. People are innocent until proven guilty. So this doesn't reduce the power of police over criminals. It puts in check the power of the executive branch with regards to citizens who are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This doesn't prevent the police from using GPS trackers. It makes sure their use is checked by the judicial system.
Your bad analogy about a crime gang in Japan is irrelevant. We're talking about the United States not Japan. Japan's legal system might let suspects skirt their system and the US might let suspect skirt theirs, but this decision has nothing to do with the Japanese legal system.
I think it was the developers responsibility to ensure they were in compliance with licensing. Google sent them legal notice to stop distributing their applications. If the developer(s) want to continue to distribute Google apps then they need to strike a deal with Google.
How is what they did evil? Is anyone directly harmed? How does this benefit Google but not the end user? Can't users easily get Google Apps without this app?
I think it's a bit of a stretch, if not disingenuous, to say that this illustrates Google imposing draconian control over app development in the same way Apple is accused. They are definitely encouraging community development just not with regards to illegally distributing their own apps. They are discouraging people from distributing their software without a license. I don't see how you could confuse the two. Do you want your software distributed without a licenses? Do you want your clsoed proprietary software code distributed without your permission? Do you want your GPL code modified and used, possibly in a closed app, without a license and without the code being available?
This really has nothing to do with promoting or discouraging development on their platform, although I'm sure those that don't like this will spin it that direction. This is, like I said in my parent post, about professionalism, respect, and proper procedures.
Developers should care about why Google is doing this. How would you feel if people were distributing your apps or project without a license possibly in violation of that license? It's irresponsible of those developers not to abide by the licensing agreements. If these developers were distributing GPL apps without a license I'm pretty sure the FSF would be breathing down their necks too. It's a matter of respect and professionalism. Those developers are out of line.
Yes, I did. There's no need to be a smart ass dick head (I noticed you posted anonymously because you can't stand behind what you say if you're going to spout off like an asshat). It does render properly if you force it. That's not really a mystery since we already know Chrome can pass acid3. My point is that in normal browsing it won't render unless the site calls it. If you're going to preface every uri with "cf:" you might as well just install Chrome. The only advantage that will give you is that UA will still report as IE8 but will use Chrome Frame to render.
It's somewhat significant because it's easy to get the impression that just by installing Chrome Frame you will now be rendering through that as a default.
IE8 still fails the Acid3 test even with Google Chrome Frame installed. I was curious and tested it out. Chrome Frame doesn't take over full rendering from IE8 unless the site includes a meta tag to use the Chrome Frame. Here is a link to the Chrome Frame page [code.google.com] (chocked full of good info).
Actually the ribbon style is not built for eye candy but rather for usability.
This is actually a point of contention among usability engineers.
Everything is a point of contention among usability engineers. Look at KDE vs Gnome or the difference in application interfaces between Mac and Windows.
But it almost perfectly captures Microsoft's view on the software market.
That's true but it also shows a pretty significant shift in their view of the software market. Previously their public support has been against nearly any form of open source.
I think there is a big difference between open management or open development (on a project level) and open source code projects. I don't Microsoft's management philosophy will ever align to the FSF ideas of open development, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate their contribution. I think this is an important step because before their ideas about open source projects and code can change they have to accept that this is a valid philosophy. This is that step.
If the fix was so easy then the death of Jack Louis wouldn't have hampered the patch process. TFA mentions that even though he was in good contact with others and kept good notes his death caused a big slowdown in finishing the research and patch.
It's always easy to find other peoples bugs and go on about how easy it would be to fix it. It only gets hard when you're coding the bugfix and the obvious solutions aren't fixing the problem.
Yes, you're right you don't have to use the software. You do have to remove it and/or deal with any registry and file associations and redirects setup by the OEM. There is a decent chance you will have it go through first run before going "WTF" and removing it. OEM software installs always seem to leave a bunch of junk in the registry and in userland directories. I would rather they didn't leave a bunch of cruft laying about and screw with file associations that's all.
The FT article (short and worth reading) is basically saying that Chrome's adoption is low and they are making OEM deals, advertising, and doing a "crapware" bundle with RealPlayer install. According to Google they are "frustrat[ed] at what they consider a lack of interest among internet users about browsers." and want to push awareness. According to Google they want to push browser development and competition:
"It's not so important everyone uses Google Chrome, it's more important browser technology evolves as fast as it can." said Mr Rakowski. Chrome set new records in terms of its speed, prompting a race among rivals to boost the performance of their own software.
The "browser snub" headline is just an attention grabber by the Register (go figure). I don't see this being much different than any other OEM making deals with third party application vendors to install and use their software as a default.
The thing I really don't like about this is the OEM deciding what third party software I use. If they are going to fool around here they should offer the default OS software or even better a list of options. I like to use Firefox. I would much rather install it by dowloading from IE than having some random third party vendor. I like Chrome, but I don't trust Google and I don't like how their software is installed along with their updater. I also hate the crapware opt-outs I have to watch for although to be fair vendors other than Google participate in that practice (Sun, Microsoft, Yahoo!, etc).
Even FF 3.5 doesn't render the graphic properly for me. In the legend the type below the line "For legibility all 'streets' and 'st' markers" is garbled. Why doesn't this work 100% of the time? Isn't there a standard (W3C, etc) that could be referenced?
What you, and gnapster, say is true. I don't think it's the same as phone, cable, or internet. I think it's also a bit more than just modifying a piece of hardware. There is a service and system tied to that console.
I understand that the console makers want to protect their business model, and I'm fine with that to a degree, but I don't necessarily think the crime and punishment fit the act here. Game development seems a bit more spendy than standard desktop or web application development (although I guess that is subjective to the project and its scope). So there has to be a reasonable middle ground between looking the other way and long term imprisonment with regards to protecting the investment and punishing those provide a service to rip off the business.
We've never been able to always do exactly what we want with all the hardware we have. There was a time when we didn't really even own our own phones and modifying them to take advantage of the phone system was a criminal offense. This is a lot different from tinkering with your desktop or laptop. In this case you're tinkering with a paid service where the revenue model and possibly the integrity of the system could be compromised by this. I think this is more akin to modifying hardware to steal cable or network service.
What? How about taking your own advice Anonymous Coward. I see you post on every feckin story I read. You always take this tough guy stance and say exactly what you mean without fear of karma or being modded to oblivion. I wish you would just shut the fuck up and quit posting in every article I read..
Do you even know what you're talking about or are you making up a bunch of spin that will make you sound good?
When you install Win 7 you can repartition, format the partitions, and select the partition you want to install to. You can dual boot if you choose and it's no more difficult to get running than it is with Linux and GRUB (or your other favorite bootloader). The ease of setting up dual-booting is subjective but that is my opinion.
So why do you have to make up weird stuff that gives you some illusion that you're winning a non-existent race? Isn't the innovation here enough, even though it's been done in some ways with other systems (BSD and rPath for examples), that the accomplishment stands on it's own without having to be a secret weapon to knock out the other guy?
Look, there is no "win". Linux will never destroy Microsoft and Windows and Microsoft will in no way ever eradicate Linux and the open development community. It's just not going to happen. There are enough people that like different platforms that no one platform will ever rule.
I've seen that before. Why can't the guy just say, "Hey! Okay, I was wrong. Do you have to be such a prick about it?"
This is because there are many people it seems, including slashdot itself, who don't want Microsoft to comply with the GPL. They don't want Microsoft to encourage open development. There is blood in the water and it's a "news" feeding frenzy. There is no win. There is nothing Microsoft can do that will make them happy. If Microsoft released their entire codebase, re-licensed under GPL 3, tomorrow it still wouldn't be good enough. If Microsoft went away tomorrow it wouldn't change how some people feel; they would just find another "evil entity" as the new target.
What purpose is there is trying to work together, promote interoperability, and offer choice? I'm beginning to see that there is no reason. This isn't about open software and making sure developers aren't shut out. It's about revenge and crushing the opponent so they can be on top. It is disappointing to say the least.
Unless "approved" means "gets through the lameness filter," that's nonsense. Anyone can post. It's just that if people don't consider what you post acceptable, they'll mod you down. That's life, live with it. I've gotten things moderated down which I considered good jokes. So what, maybe the jokes were not really so good, maybe the moderators just didn't get them, whatever. The worst which could happen would be that I lose my karma bonus (which I don't normally use anyway). Oh, and Adblock might get some work if I lose my good karma.
Just An Opinion: Actually I've found that if people don't agree with you they will mod you to oblivion with flamebait or troll. Sometimes people do mod down over-rated, flamebait, or troll because someone is doing just that but just as often it's used to censor and/or burn the posters karma. I mean how often do you see some fairly insightful posts by AC because people don't want to risk their karma in a heated topic?
The problem here is that they are delivering fluff content for pay that used to be delivered for free, in game, just for purchasing the game and buying a subscription. Now a subscription doesn't get you everything. It's just a door opener to spend more money. The player is basically paying for content twice.
The other problem is the "slippery slope" dilemma. I hate the whole slippery slope argument in general, but I think it can apply here. If they see fluff as a viable model for MTs where does that stop? What other content will they try and sell as an MT that they used to provide as part of the purchase and sub? When will they decide that some "fluff" items are 'special edition' and only available in the store as a micro-transaction?
I'll just say no thanks and pass.
Trust is neither required nor desired in business. Much more reliable to trust persuit of self-interest. Business is not family life. There are no bonds of affection. Delusional to pretend there are.
That's crap. Trust is essential in smooth business dealings. You can do business with a business partner you can't trust, but it's a hundred times harder. The contracts get horrendously long and complicated, the oversight creates huge overhead and the experience ends up being really unpleasant for all of the people involved. And if you end up in court... that's a huge time and money sink.
So businesses like to establish long-term, amicable relationships with business partners exactly so that they can rely on trust, to loosen up the contracts, smooth out the communication and be able to have confidence that the other party will make good on their promises. Good businessmen understand the limits of trust, but they also understand its advantages. Why do you think business partners eat together, play golf together, etc.? It's precisely to build personal human-to-human relationships to build the trust that's necessary to doing business together effectively. Even better is the experience of doing business together for years, with a joint understanding that both sides will benefit if the relationship continues to be healthy.
This notion is taken to an extreme in the Japanese "Keiretsu", but it's a common feature of nearly all businesses that are successful in the long term. Partnerships matter, and they're built on trust.
I think this is a load of crap. Trust is built on well defined business contracts and agreements. Partnerships matter, and they're built on mutually aligned self-interests.
Of course you will be modded +5 Insightful, Interesting, and most importantly +5 Loved by the blind zealots. You post of bunch of "I knew it all along" tripe to support your hate and everyone loves you for it. You can't stand the fact that Microsoft is doing the right thing so you will spin your "facts" any way you can to start the FUD wheel moving.
I know I'm headed for mod hell and Karma oblivion , but here goes. You should be happy that a company that has so closely embraced closed/proprietary licensing is doing the right thing by honoring the GPL as they should. They could have chosen any number of wrong directions, but they chose the right one. Their motives for doing so are irrelevant.
If you think the motives for IBM, Oracle, Sun, or even RedHat for honoring and promoting the GPL are anything other than financial or self-interested you are seriously deluding yourself. This isn't a religion to those companies. It is a tool that they leverage to try and increase their dominance and profits in the technology sector. The fact that all those companies have closed, restrictive, or proprietary solutions should testify to the fact that they are concerned about their position and profits only. Microsoft is doing the same thing. They want their Hyper-V to be successful. They used GPL components, whether in hindsight or foresight, and chose to GPL their drivers as the best way to see their product succeed.
If anything this should be good news for FOSS zealots everywhere because it shows that Microsoft now considers the GPL a viable route to see product success. It is a fairly huge paradigm shift. Unfortunately there will be people who are more concerned with Microsoft failing than they are with corporate giants moving in the right direction. It limits you.
Moodle is a preexisting OSS project, this is just a plugin for making Windows Live web services work with it. This does suggest that MS doesn't think that they can kill moodle; but it isn't their offering.
Actually, it might lead to courses that use Moodle (my university does) to require Windows Live Messenger for each student. That means that Linux users, who otherwise could use the Moodle coursework, will now not be able to interoperate fully with the rest of their coursemates. This seems to me to be adding an option for a _dependency_ on Windows to Moodle. I am afraid that many courses will exercise that option.
Or it might mean that those students who like to use Live services can have an easier integration into Moodle. Many institutions use Moodle and better integration with other apps and services is always better. I would hope that Google would also provide better integration tools as well. More choice, open license, easier for faculty and students is a win. A course is more likely to require Windows, Linux, OSX based on course materials and required applications than on some random choice of email providers.
They're just aliases so people can use the terms they're comfortable with. Haven't you ever made your own custom aliases in Bash? It didn't invalidate the old ones. No one new using a system with custom aliases gets confused because they can still use the default terms they are used to. I love that Powershell makes these aliases for you. It makes using the shell on Windows much more comfortable for me.