Microsoft Releases WTL To SourceForge 560
prostoalex writes "Microsoft's WTL (Windows Template Library) toolkit source code has been released to SourceForge.net [also part of OSDN, like Slashdot.] InternetNews explains that the toolkit allows a Windows developer to create quick GUIs in C++. According to the project page, WTL extends ATL (Active Template Library) and provides a set of classes for controls, dialogs, frame windows, GDI objects, and more. WTL is licensed under CPL, which is the license Microsoft chose for the SourceForge release of the WiX installer."
Interesting Observation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:5, Interesting)
If they can't kill it, then they have to resort to "embrace and extend"...
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:4, Insightful)
But remember, after years of dealing with what we feel is a horrible interface and being strongarmed into this and that, and let down by focus on money and not product, we have a very strong right to be skeptical about anything that Microsoft does.
To this point in Microsoft's history, they have done NOTHING that I can think of out of the kindness of their hearts. Everything can be written up as enough to get by with as much money as they can take from customers and carry to the bank.
A little too much MS bashing? Sure. A lot of misfounded MS bashing? Yup. A little too serious of an attitude towards MS? Oh yeah. But with that said, MS deserves a lot of skepticism and concern and if you want to avoid skepticism and concern (which isn't what you said, don't mean to put words in your mouth) I humbly suggest that you avoid websites filled with people who ran screaming from the Microsoft house.
Cheers
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft gets what it deserves. They are sneaky and underhanded.There is nothing about there actions that should be seen as anything but a cleverly veiled continuation of their need to dominate the world. Is that extreme? Probably -- maybe -- but the true danger is underestimating people like this. And if you don't think that people with the kind of money that these people have -- personally and corporately -- does not influence everything you do, then you have not yet reached adulthood.
Who knows why they are making this particular move. Maybe OSS coders are the only ones cheaper than subcontinent Asians. Maybe they don't want to have to buy out the next GUI design company. One thing's for sure though: This latest move is but another tactic in a blizzard of tactics supporting a neverchanging strategy. It's pure sleight of hand. It never pays to underestimate your foe. And it never hurts to overestimate them.
Momma always said, "never trust anyone that says 'Trust me.'"
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:4, Interesting)
1) Refrain from obtaining money from people by illegally exploiting your monoploy power, thereby leaving millions of individuals and companies more money to use as they see fit.
to
2) Illegally exploit your monopoly to gain much more money than you would have otherwise had, and then give some of it to charity so people think they are nice.
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:5, Insightful)
The blatant and awful mistakes that Microsoft makes and the people who can't recognize good behavior from the object of their prejudice all are explained by the Stupid People Theory. Whenever you are trying to figure out why people do what they do, refer to the Theory. Its a really simple Theory, so I won't bother explaining it ;)
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:5, Interesting)
To this point in Microsoft's history, they have done NOTHING that I can think of out of the kindness of their hearts. Everything can be written up as enough to get by with as much money as they can take from customers and carry to the bank.
I can think of two things:
1.) Supporting a $100 O.S. for 6 years [slashdot.org] with official updates and patches. Quite a deal, one that you certainly won't see from redhat.
2.) Allowing pirated copies of windows XP to install service pack 2 [betanews.com]. A clip from the article: "Microsoft group product manager Barry Goffe told ComputerTimes that [...] it was more important to keep user safe than to be 'concerned about the revenue issue.'"
~Will
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Interesting Observation (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone who can't install vital service packs has three choices: keep using it unpatched, buy a legal copy, or switch to something else. M$ desperately wants to stop people cold-turkeying themselves off their software, and I'm sure the service pack is partly to prevent that.
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:3, Informative)
2) Hmmm... now I'm confused. Did you miss the slashback? [slashdot.org] Or did I miss the slashbackback that took it back? Perhaps we shan't know till they actually release it.
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:5, Insightful)
But remember, after years of dealing with what we feel is a horrible interface and being strongarmed into this and that, and let down by focus on money and not product, we have a very strong right to be skeptical about anything that Microsoft does.
Common misconception amongst everyone in the open source movement, or just anti-MS zealots in general. If Microsoft is focused on making money, they are focused on their products. They cannot, at gunpoint, force consumers to purchase their products. In order to make money, they must provide a product that appeals to the largest number of people possible. That is focusing on the product. While it may not be technically superior or as stable as other OS's (Linux, Mac OS X, name it), it still does what most people want while the other operating systems don't. That is why those OS's don't have the market share. While I think Linux's technical superiority will allow it to catch up, to say Microsoft is blatantly trying to create a crappy product in order to make more money is, at best, bizarre logic.
To this point in Microsoft's history, they have done NOTHING that I can think of out of the kindness of their hearts.
What exactly are you talking about? Are they supposed to buy everyone a teddy bear?
Microsoft made computing mainstream and gives most consumers exactly what they want. Isn't that kind enough? They're a business, what else are they supposed to do? If they weren't providing a benefit of some kind to people, they would not make money, and therefore would not exist.
Everything can be written up as enough to get by with as much money as they can take from customers and carry to the bank.
And still customers HAVE THAT OPTION. No one is threatening them at gunpoint. They are voluntarily handing over their money, Bill Gates is not mugging them.
A little too much MS bashing? Sure. A lot of misfounded MS bashing? Yup.
Couldn't agree more.
Only on
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:5, Funny)
Does this mean I should have BOUGHT WindowsXP???
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:5, Insightful)
I could not get this laptop without some flavor of Windows XP. Nothing on the packaging indicated that I could return the O/S - the Windows XP product license sticker was even stuck to the bottom of the laptop when opening the box!
So, where's my option for Billy boy? I had no option - either I bought the system with the O/S, or I did not buy a system I needed.
This is where the antitrust trial had a case - a case they won and then botched badly....and there went your credibility.
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:4, Insightful)
Didn't you buy the laptop from Dell?
How is it relevant that DELL (note: not Microsoft, but DELL!) forces you to buy XP?
If I buy an alienware laptop and I don't have the option to buy it without having to pay for a boxed copy of redhat, can you really blame that on redhat?
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:5, Insightful)
This is indeed mostly attributable to Microsoft.
It's pretty well-known that electronics hardware manufacturers of all kinds (including PC OEM's) operate on razor-thin margins. Because of this, most of the profit on computer systems comes from markup on the bundled OS.
Microsoft offers copies of Windows to members of its OEM program at a very deep discount. Without this discount, manufacturers would find it very difficult to remain competitive on price. Naturally, MS is very aware of the amount of control over OEM's that this puts in their hands, and they use it liberally. (coughabuse of monopoly powercough) If you piss off Microsoft, you risk being dropped from their partner program, at which point you're basically dead. That's why you see so few Linux desktops from major manufacturers--they're scared shitless of Microsoft.
So, yeah, Dell might be the one forcing you to accept a copy of WinXP with your computer, but it's really Microsoft's fault. The fact that these circumstances do not apply to any other OS developer is exactly what makes MS a monopoly in the first place.
Don't feel bad, though. If you weren't paying for an OEM copy of XP, your hardware costs would probably increase significantly anyway, since OEM's need to make money somewhere. So I guess it's a wash.
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't like the product that's being offered, don't buy it. If enough people don't buy it, they'll change the product to be something that you will buy. That's how the market works.
- Steve
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, yeah. If every manufacturer shipped the same stereo and the stereo company threatened to stop selling them stereos if they tried to ship any other stereo with any of their vehicles, that would be fairly monopolistic.
Or if the stereo that everyone shipped could only tune in stations that the manufacturer approved so the stereo company could rule the radio station biz. That might do it too.
Or if the stereo manufacturer used special CD laser techniques that only they knew about so the CDs they released using this technology sounded better than other CD maker's disks in order to strongarm their way to higher CD sales. That could be a case.
But this is all speculation. And, of course, very little of this would be illegal if the stereo company didn't have a near-monopoly.
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:4, Insightful)
You're not being imaginative enough - even if he did that, you'd hear complaints from the non-virgin slashdotters, the gay and straight female ones, the ones that prefer other acts to oral sex, the attached ones, and the ones that just plain don't fancy Carmen Electra.
Hell, when they included a firewall in XP they got bashed for encroaching on the third-party firewall market, for not enabling it by default, and for not making it good enough.
Nothing short of open sourcing their entire codebase under the GPL would satisfy the slashdot collective - and even that would get them bashed for allowing crackers and script kiddies to see all the so-far undiscovered security holes.
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, WTL has never really been a product, so much as a development framework, and the licence has always been pretty open so thats not a really dramatic step, but unlike the Wix thing this is actually really useful and we've (my dev group) already learnt that there are fixes and changes in this version of WTL that we didn't know about, so thats pretty cool.
Kudos to Microsoft on this one I think.
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:5, Insightful)
i couldn't give a rat-fuck whether or not they do something out of kindness. i DO care about the awful things they're doing in order to maintain their stifling monopoly, including perverting standards, underhanded business deals, attacks-by-proxy on F/OSS, and locking consumers who are too stupid to know any better into proprietary technology.
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but Microsoft had nothing to do with Gnome.
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:3, Interesting)
It took IBM around 10 years. MS earned thier reputation in the past and some would argue are still earning it today (they still finance much FUD). Allthougth in some ways they appear to be making some good moves in the right direction it is a fact of life that it will be uphill.
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Develop a Windows OSS community to rival Linux/BSD/etc.
2) Create/Improve OSS Windows applications.
3) Gain marketshare for OSS Windows applications.
4) Due to sneaky license clause, begin reeling in user's rights to your OSS software (this is where the definition of OSS becomes tricky).
The problem here is that this is extending open source applications. All those people who switched to Linux for more control and cool apps? They just might switch to Windows if the new software is good (extended) enough. Microsoft can kill OSS applications.
But killing OSS itself is another thing entirely. If you wrap up what was once OSS code (step #4), people will once again leave you and the code may possibly fork. OSS still lives. If Microsoft doesn't go through with step #4, then the software is still OSS and OSS still lives.
The OSS community today is getting along fine without any support from Microsoft and little support from other hardware/software vendors. Microsoft cannot kill OSS as a concept and it likely cannot pull enough developers away from Linux/BSD/etc. OSS unless Windows truely becomes a good operating system.
Do I think this will happen? Not a snowball's chance in hell. But they'll try -- and fail because they do not understand how deeply the motivations for OSS go, at least I don't think so.
Cheers
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:5, Insightful)
An alternate scenario:
1) Slowly, start testing the waters of the OSS community by offering up small, insignificant components.
2) Build support and confidence within the OSS community
3) Maintain your market share and increase your ability to push against your rivals (notably *nix/BSD)
They don't need to embrace and extend. They don't need to play games with licensing. They simply have to maintain market dominance on their three main products: Windows desktop, Windows server, and Office.
And please, let us not forget that there is a *huge* amount of OSS developers who are Windows-centric. They would absolutely love to be able to get their hands into MS's pie and contribute to the Windows component base.
The best thing that MS could do, from a competitive viewpoint, would be to GPL a bunch of their products. They would increase their workforce by such an order of magnitude (and for little to no cost) so as to make *nix's head spin.
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:5, Interesting)
What you're describing falls into the "Microsoft creates a good operating system" alternative. I honestly think it could and probably will happen once Linux eats up a little more marketshare. Microsoft is known for adapting, albeit often late, to stay alive and I think OSS will eventually become at least some part of Microsoft's daily life.
It will take time before they grow up, but it will eventually happen or the monopoly will fall. History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme (Mark Twain?).
Cheers
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:5, Interesting)
they will almost certainly NOT accept source from other people; (although they may take suggestions, i'm sure).
the purpose of this is not to make their product better by allowing the community to help, but rather to allow people to customize their own toolkits or to at least better understand what they're using.
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a big deal in itself. Just knowing what goes on behind the scenes and having the ability to modify it for your own needs is one of the huge benefits of open source, regardless of whether the owners incorporate changes from the community.
Besides, you could always release your own version. (Ahem, "em
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone know?
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:5, Informative)
It's the same license, for example, that Eclipse [eclipse.org] uses.
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:4, Informative)
Some relevant parts:
When the Program is made available in source code form:
a) it must be made available under this Agreement; and
b) a copy of this Agreement must be included with each copy of the Program.
Contributors may not remove or alter any copyright notices contained within the Program.
Each Contributor must identify itself as the originator of its Contribution, if any, in a manner that reasonably allows subsequent Recipients to identify the originator of the Contribution.
The license expressly grants any patent licenses as well. It also allows for closed source binary-only distribution.
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:4, Insightful)
If they don't accept source from other people, then one of two things will happen: either people will quit contributing, and SF will just become another Microsoft download site for this code; or if people find it important enough they will fork it.
NOPE (Score:3, Informative)
they will almost certainly NOT accept source from other people; (although they may take suggestions, i'm sure).
It doesn't work like this. To get a project hosted at sourceforge, you have to choose a license from a variety of FOSS models (GPL is one, there are many others).
There is nothing stopping someone taking this code and forking it, if the (presumably Microsoft-based) project admins won't take their patche
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:3, Interesting)
If allowing people to customize thier own tools kits and having a better understanding of what they are using is the extent they are willing to participate in, then I feel they would loose out on some of the spirit of it. On the other hand, I
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:5, Insightful)
That doesn't matter. It's out there now. You are free to take it, re-release it as OpenWTL, and make all the changes you want. This is the beauty of Open Source. The community now has equal say in the future of this code as Microsoft does.
If they never touched this project again, that would be fine. All they're obligated to do is release the code once. As long as they keep releasing their changes, they are doing well.
Open Source works because people contribute what they want/need. That's all Microsoft has to do to be a good member of the community (yes, Microsoft *can* become a good member of the community).
In fact, I'll go as far as this, Microsoft has submitted to codebases to the community now. How many people can stand up here and claim to have submitted more than Microsoft has? In many ways, Microsoft is a better member of the community than a lot of people reading this right now.
Kind of crazy eh?
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:3, Insightful)
I tell you one thing though. Except for the MS astro turfers most people here never claimed open source was un american or a cancer or communist. How you can claim that MS loves open source and this community is beyond me. Just listen to their leaders for gods sake.
There are several possibilities that Microsoft may be pursuing.
Nothing wrong with that (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing with OSS code is that the
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm just curious as to what will happen if Microsoft finds someone inserting code from their non-GPL-compatible release into a GPLed piece of software. Will they give people the same courtesy that the GNU Project does -- remove it or open source it -- or will they try to sue and shut down the GPL-using author?
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:5, Informative)
Did they really claim this? I'm too lazy to dig up old articles, but I thought the objection was to the GPL in particular. And for projects like this, they are specifically avoiding the GPL, which is consistent with their earlier claims.
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft denounced Open Source (Score:5, Informative)
From http://news.com.com/2100-1001-270684.html?legacy=
Earlier in the year, that feature led Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer to call open-source software a "cancer" and Windows leader Jim Allchin to call it "an intellectual-property destroyer."
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, they embrace OSS when it suits them. For example, back in 1998 I used Windows NT 4.0 at work. I had the NT Resource Kit, which came with PERL and some other open-source stuff licensed under GPL (PERL is dual-licensed, IIRC).
Anyway, the Resource Kit's book had the GPL printed in the back. It was VERY amusing to see the preamble of the GPL, which basically denounces predatory closed-source software,
Re:Interesting Observation (Score:4, Funny)
I believe Microsoft is actually very pro-operating system.
So, how long until... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So, how long until... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's bizarre myself. They're kinda throwing away their advertising money by buying spots on OSDN. Let's see, we've got four different groups here:
I think that (correct me if I'm wrong) the vast majority of Slashdot readers and posters fall into the first two categories. And they're already baptised members of the open-source community, so they're not giving up the faith. The rest, who fall into the last two categories, certainly have an open mind towards Linux and are usually pretty sceptical of advertising in general.
Re:So, how long until... (Score:5, Interesting)
Lots of people around here write software for a living, not just as a hobby. Unless you write web software, embedded software or other niche software, it's safe to say that you have to worry about people buying and using the software you write, which means using Windows. No, I'd say the fact that MS buys ads on OSDN indicates they understand the audience on Slashdot fairly well and in fact they want to be associated in these developers minds with the positive aspects of the Open Source community.
Anyway, I am an active Slashdot poster, and I know a fair number of other active Slashdot posters, and as far as I know, relatively few of them can say they exclusively use Linux, FreeBSD, or other Free/Open Source operating systems. I don't know if I would call myself "platform agnostic" - I'm not a zealot, and I recognize the strengths and weaknesses of Linux and Windows, but when it comes down to it, I need people to buy my software, and ignoring that fact is a fast road to being broke.
Hurry up and post, pundits (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hurry up and post, pundits (Score:3)
The Slashdot crowd has a lot of old, hardcore Linux folks and I think that group is still the majority, but with Slashdot's popularity as a geek site in general, there is a lot greater support here for Microsoft than some of the "QUIT BASHING MS!!" types want to admit.
Nobody likes unfounded comments or trolling, which is why some of us get so upset over comments against Linux, but to claim that Slashdot as
Re:Hurry up and post, pundits (Score:3)
Moderation +3
40% Funny
30% Underrated
20% Overrated
Total Score: 4
WTL (Score:3, Interesting)
Errata (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Errata (Score:5, Funny)
Well now we KNOW you're lying.
Actually, real story.... (Score:5, Interesting)
There have been few times in my life where I have been more amazed than I was at the number of ways a girl could work some variation of "How much money do you make?" into the first three sentences of a conversation.
I'm happy to report, however, that these women are no longer there.
In retrospect, however, I probably should have just said "A Googillion".
license (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:license (Score:5, Informative)
Re:license (Score:5, Insightful)
Producing software that is open source but not GPL-compatible helps fragment the opne-source world and weaken the GPL (unlike the BSD license, which is different from the GPL but compatible with it).
Re:license (Score:3, Informative)
-1: Lying about the GPL [gnu.org]
Short Summary: (Score:4, Interesting)
CPL: If there is something in this software that is patented, and was patented at the time of contribution to the software, this software may still be distributed even if a patent is required to use it.
So it depends on your definition of "free". CPL says you're allowed to distribute the software whether it's patent encumberred or not, GPL says that if it's patent encumberred, you can't redistribute it. So CPL is more BSD-like free. Free as in "Here it is, do what you want", not free as in "Here it is, anything you add has to be free too."
Maybe that wasn't all that short.
Re:license (Score:5, Informative)
Woah. Hold your horses there pal. Quotith gnu.org:
So the FSF simply states that the CPL has extra clauses that aren't necessarily bad. The FSF is *not* shy about saying something is bad when they think it is. Fact is there are a lot of non-GPL compatible licenses out there. This is not like saying the CPL is OSI approved, but not FSF approved.
I know some of the people that worked on developing the IPL (the predecessor to the CPL). They worked very hard to make a license that would be acceptable to the community. The GPL is vague on patents. Unfortunately in the corporate world, you need to be more specific.
I applaud Microsoft for using the CPL. Keep in mind, the LGPL cannot be used with C++ code without a special clause (see libstdc++ in GCC for more info on this).
Uh-oh (Score:5, Funny)
I mean, do I download it? Do I use it? Do I trust it?
All of a sudden nothing makes sense anymore!
Re:Uh-oh (Score:3, Insightful)
I love this quote:
Wow. Open Source as just another tool. Just like free markets. To be used and supported when it makes sense.
That almost sounds reasonable...and it's from a manag
Good for them (Score:3, Insightful)
Glad to see MS releasing so much code (Score:5, Funny)
In other news.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In other news.... (Score:3, Funny)
What now, Slashdot? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, fuck it.
"Bill gate is a poopyhead, neener neener neener!"
It's not free software. (Score:3, Interesting)
Which, I believe, that Justice Department lawsuit requires them to release (i.e., make it easier for 3rd parties to interface to the OS).
It does allow 3rd parties to be better able to program for Windows (so it could negatively impact M$'s ability to protect their own software aps for their OS), but one could also argue that making it easier for 3rd parties to write software for your OS is a disincenti
It's about damned time. (Score:5, Informative)
It started life as an MSDN sample app, but (to the surprise of everyone), people started actually using it. It fits nicely between the niches of MFC and ATL, supports a nice big chunk of what you need to do to get a desktop app running, and does it in a very clean, STL-friendly way. I read in an interview that some folks at MS thought it was a major mistake to release it; fortunately for them (at the time) it was pretty obscure.
There's some history of WTL at WikiWiki [c2.com].
I remember way back then there were a couple of calls for Microsoft to "give it away" (in terms of control, not price--it's always been gratis), but I suppose the time hasn't been politically right within Microsoft until the recent popularity of their installer program release.
Re:It's about damned time. (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree--had WTL been released before MFC, or even after MFC but before 32-bit Windows, I think it would be the dominant paradigm on the Windows desktop.
But Microsoft really didn't have any incentive at all to market it, and putting it into MSDN was as good an idea (at the time) as any.
Given that Open Source is the latest business world rage, and they no longer have a huge need to prevent it from fragmenting their MFC developer base, this is a smart move (with near-zero cost) for them now, too.
Anyone who is willing to dump MFC for a better thing, and has their eyes on the future, is likely to head
On the bridge of the USS Linux (Score:5, Funny)
Spock: Captain, I expect they are doing this so they can still feel relevant in the future open-source, linux-dominated software world.
Kirk: Mr Sulu, set phasers to "ignore"
Sulu: Aye, Captain.
On the Bridgeof the USS Corporate (Score:3, Funny)
Riker: They've already assimilated 90% of our allies. This will make it easier to interface with their systems, and if there are any problems, we can just tell them to restart their warp cores.
Picard: On mainscreen.
Re:On the bridge of the USS Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
My goal in switching to Linux wasn't to destroy Microsoft.
Hard to believe as you may find it, it was to become LEGIT!
There's no way I can afford to shell out for something like Windows XP every couple of years.
And now, everything I run is legit. And free. Can't forget about the freedom.
Re:On the bridge of the USS Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
MS just stops providing patches and the pressure to switch increases. Win95 without patches isn't that unsafe - you can remove all the network services. But it's hard to do that with Win2K, XP etc.
This is great news (Score:5, Informative)
It's a great lightweight wrapper around Win32 API, does not depend on any external DLLs (like MFC etc).
The only problem with WTL, up to including this release, is that there is absolutely no documentation - there
are a few projects documenting WTL3.0 or older exist, but they are not maintained anymore. Hopefully once this
project is on sourceforge, people will be fixing bugs *and* writing documentation. I'm very looking forward
to this.
WTL Rocks (Score:5, Informative)
That all said, Microsoft did practically everything they could to squash this project; it was originally installed as an "oh, by the way" in their SDK package (and not enabled by default...you had to go hunting for it) and then they removed it entirely. Official communcations always seemed to revolve around the message that "We acknowledge that it exists, we would prefer you not use it, and no we're not going to tell you why." I guess they had some fear that everyone was going to dump the millions of lines of existing MFC code for much better written code that
Trust me from one who has used this library in apps that reached production: this is a true gem amist all the cubic zirconia that MS puts out.
Well... hm.... (Score:4, Interesting)
always open source! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nenad is amazing and has really been the core developer of the project (he is now the project admin at sourceforge), but it will be interesting to see the OSS process at work here.
WTL for stand-alone executables (Score:4, Interesting)
That being said, the best way to create GUIs in Windows nowadays is to use Windows Forms either in C# or C++. Compared to MFC/WTL/whatever, its a dream come true.
Re:WTL for stand-alone executables (Score:5, Informative)
Really. MFC works okay if you want stay on the path, but get off the beaten track a bit - say to implement something in OLE like an OLE message filter - and it becomes a nightmare. Half the methods are not virtual compelling you to cut and paste whole classes to change a few lines. I've literally copied huge chunks of MFC to change a function that I could not override.
And MS in their wisdom have tried to merge MFC & ATL into atlmfc with duplicate classes galore. Now they're trashing ATL by deprecating some of the tried and trusted conventions such as object maps in favour of meta info that ties ATL tightly to VC++7.x. Still, ATL is fast and produces very tight code compared to MFC.
WTL works much like ATL, and neither is particularly hard to learn assuming you've seen any STL, MFC, wxWindows etc. in your life.
Interestingly, no one has pointed out that WTL depends on ATL. The CPL'd WTL depends on the proprietary ATL. So its use is rather limited. It would be great to see MS open up MFC, ATL and WTL since it would make porting apps to Wine a lot easier. Perhaps that's why it is unlikely to ever happen.
Microsoft + Sourceforge = (Score:5, Funny)
Seems to be problems (Score:4, Funny)
there's no makefile,
I don't think this stuff is compatible with Linux!
Installed it... (Score:3, Funny)
Finally MS is contributing (Score:3, Insightful)
Common Public License: OSI, not GPL compatiable (Score:4, Informative)
GPL compatiable [gnu.org]
Common Public License Version 1.0
This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL.
The Common Public License is incompatible with the GPL because it has various specific requirements that are not in the GPL.
For example, it requires certain patent licenses be given that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent license requirements are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)
Good on you MS (NOT) (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, this is the exact same code that was available from MS for WTL before, its just a change of licence to the CPL
Unless microsoft opens ATL to the world also, this doesnt help anyone developing on non-MS compilers
Personally, I think they could gain a LOT of PR by open-sourcing more stuff.
Specificly, releasing (under the CPL for example) more code which is not important to M$ money making machine.
For example, open sourcing their C Runtime (the source code does come with Visual C++ but its missing some bits that only come in binary form)
Or open source the Active Template Library or MFC.
Or "open-source" the Platform SDK (i.e. all the headers and libraries)
Although I suspect that Open Sourcing things like CRT, ATL or MFC would probobly hurt MS since people would be able to use instead of to develop for those libaries.
On the other hand, there is no reason why someone cant come up with a free version of ATL or MFC or whatever that matches the published interface (there are already at least 2 free versions of the MSVCRT.DLL file, unsure exactly how complete they are, there are also free versions of the headers and libraries for talking to MSVCRT.DLL)
Get started with WTL (Score:5, Interesting)
For those of you who may be curious about this technology, here are a couple of points:
WTL is a collection of header files with the source inlined in. Personally I find the source reasonably understandable. I have had not much trouble stepping through and debugging WTL calls.
It's a light wrapper around the Win32 API. Some people commented on the lack of documentation regarding the WTL. The truth is, MSDN's API and common controls documentation pretty much covers what you need to know. For most cases the library does little fudging between your app and the API behavior.
For the application I am coding, I use strictly STL strings, containers, and various Boost libraries. With WTL, I don't feel that I am paying for things I am not using like CStrings and such. For non-UI OS calls, I use ATL. In short, WTL, STL, & ATL let me produce efficient code without worrying about reinventing solutions.
One thing I am worried about is the future of WTL. Open-sourcing is great, but I don't know what direction the Windows API is heading. As
trojan horse (Score:4, Insightful)
* wider open source community acceptance of MS (for releasing something "open source" which was argueably already open source - hello, header files, anyone?)
* strain on the open source community (ie, sourceforge) to further/improve the Win32/MS ballpark (granted, its a negligible strain, but it's pennies which add up to dollars, and so forth, nonetheless)
Re:trojan horse (Score:3)
The header files ARE the API, dumbass. WTL is a template library - all of the code lives in the header files.
Encore, Microsoft! (never thought I'd say that) (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft still has a long way to go in my book before I can even consider trusting them as a company, but clearly some of its individuals "get it" and are taking steps. If it's OSI compatible, I feel much less wary. One thing that could really sway me is making certain critical file formats (like Word/Excel) open. And oh yeah, stop trying to hijack the Internet. That would be nice.
What about ATL? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, just like the last OSS release from MS, this is not what I would call an important piece of software. In MS's new world .Net is king. So the WTL can go away. However, it is pretty clever to get a little PR out of this release instead of just letting the WTL fade away.
All MS needs to do to make a big positive change of their image, is release ONE important piece of their software as OSS and actaully let the community contribute. I am not talking about a bread-n-butter app like MS Office. Some non-revenue generating app like IE or even explorer.exe. Those two apps could use some serious fixin.
I agree. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What about ATL? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not trying to be snarky - is there a real substantive difference?
Unwanted Child (Score:5, Informative)
I've written a few WTL programs, and am rather fond of this lightweight wrapper over ATL. WTL allowed me to create small, tight programs without the overhead (and poor design) of MFC (which was created before templates were added to Visual C++).
WTL has always been something of a dirty little secret: it wasn't installed by default by Visual Studio, and the README files suggested that it was an internal project unsupported by management. Yet those of us who disliked MFC found WTL to be quite useful, despite Microsoft's "official" attitude.
As for Microsoft releasing this as Open Source -- MS management never valued WTL in the first place, so "giving it away" is merely a public relations move.
Re:Unwanted Child (Score:5, Interesting)
That could be true if it were a few isolated incidents, but there are things up on
Maybe the OSS community is the big lumbering beast which is slow to change while MS is getting on with changing what needs to be changed. Each small change by itself isn't ground breaking, but a trend, well, maybe that is.
It takes Bill a few iterations... (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember the days when the MS C++ compilers were horrid? After a revs, it got decent, then it got good. Now it's everywhere and their IDEs set the standard that all others are measured against.
Maybe they are getting the hang of sharing the source to get the community benefit?
MS on SF (Score:5, Interesting)
Good move by MS. Unfortunately, WTL sucks. (Score:5, Interesting)
Although it is nice to see the software giant contribute to open source, WTL sucks. It is really no different than MFC, carrying with it all the disadvantages of it:
a) the window creation process: first you create the C++ object, then you call 'create', and then 'preCreate', 'postCreate' and other silly stuff is being called. Contrast that with QT where you simply create a C++ object...
b) message maps: it violates object-oriented programming; introduces macro hell; makes code very sensitive to changes, to the point where if something goes wrong the IDE can not parse the code any more.
c) menus and commands based on numeric ids: maintaining the list of ids is easy at first, but it grows exponentially harder as the project grows, and after a while it becomes unmanageable to the point that it needs serious manual intervention.
d) the stupid UI updating architecture: your UI elements will be updated only when there is no other message in the message loop. You don't know when your UI will be updated.
e) the classes don't make any sense. For example, there is a CMessageLoop class. For crying out loud, who would have thought to make a class out of a message loop ? only MS twisted minds.
f) more string classes.
To me, it seems that releasing WTL is all about making themselves more innocent to the open source world. They now can say "look, we are contributing to OSS, you can't blame us!".
I would have much respect for them if they released anything serious to open source...for example the
Re:Has anyone used this with watcom c yet? (Score:3, Informative)
WTL wont work with Visual C++ Compiler Toolkit because WTL requires the Active Template Library which is (unless something has changed) only available with full versions of Visual C++.
Therefore, the WTL is only useable with visual C++.
Now if they open sourced the Active Template Library as well...