5857637
story
Comments: 344 +- Developers: Microsoft Launches Its Own Open Source Foundation on Thursday September 10, @12:58PM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicms.gif); width:75px; height:55px;
microsoft
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicsoftware.gif); width:65px; height:65px;
software
darthcamaro writes "Microsoft already had its own open source (OSI-approved) licenses, its own open source project hosting site and now it's adding its own non-profit open source foundation.
That's right, the company that is still banging the patent drum against open source now has its own 501(c)(6) open source foundation. Officially called the CodePlex Foundation, it's a separate effort from the CodePlex site and is aimed at helping to get more commercial developers involved in open source. Considering how they continue to attack Linux and open source, will anyone take them seriously?"
Related Stories
Codeplex 100 Day Deadline Passes Unremarked 106 comments
No man in the world has more courage than the man who can stop after
eating one peanut.
-- Channing Pollock
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
trap (Score:4, Funny)
Re:trap (Score:4, Insightful)
Translators note means: Just as Planned.
Parent
Jealousy (Score:5, Insightful)
They have the money and they have to try, but I am doubtful that they'll do much else besides foster Microsoft-centric development of tools and programs similar to the Windows Powershell IDE by Dr. Tobias Weltner.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if they take the best ideas elsewhere, MS products are usually solid and just work. Visual Studio is *still* considered the best development environment there is and with a reason. Windows is still the major mostly used OS in desktop (mac, the only competitor, doesn't really come even close).
Even if you have original ideas, you have to know how to put them together. Now to do something other than car analogy. Even if you have the best ketchup in the world, you cant make your hamburger better if its all
Re:now that IS a TASTY burger (Score:3, Interesting)
Urg, remind me not to read your comments during lunch.
Aside from shamelessly "borrowing" their "innovations" from other companies, and their strong-arm restraint-of-trade distribution tactics, Microsoft have always been the masters of "good enough." For any of the products Microsoft offers (Visual Studio included) there are several commercial competitors that are demons
Re:Jealousy (Score:4, Funny)
and how much is XCode?
$600, but it comes with a free computer.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think Microsoft sees a lot of good work going on in the open source community and it wants to tap into that source of innovation.
Can we please kill the word "innovation" already?
I don't care about innovation, not should most people involved with software do. Ideas are trivial, implementation is king.
Re:Jealousy (Score:5, Insightful)
Cloning proprietary applications and OSes is innovation?
MS-DOS 1.0 was originally QDOS, Tim Paterson's clone of Digital Research's CP-M. MS-DOS 2.0 was an attempt to clone some UNIX features. Some (folders, file handles, I/O redirection) were implemented successfully; others (namely pipes) are simulated due to the lack of any sort of task switching.
Pot calling the kettle black? Almost any app you see in the Linux land is either a clone of a proprietary app or a clone of a clone (and so on).
Windows is a clone of Mac OS classic, and Excel is a clone of VisiCalc and 1-2-3. Real or malarkey?
Parent
Re:Jealousy (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you're rather abusing the word "clone" here. A clone would be identical. DOS was not a clone of CP/M, Windows was not a clone of MacOS, Excel is not a clone of VisiCalc. They have similar functionality, common concepts (I mean, there are only so many ways you can do a spreadsheet) and probably some operability or low-level rip offs, but they ain't clones.
Parent
Distinction without a difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, they are hugely popular and they have the major market share. They make billions of profit, yet smaller companies like Apple seem to be the ones coming up with new products.
Microsoft has been a drag on innovation for more than two decades. Its best, and seemingly only, plays continue to be copies of new technology.
Parent
Re:trap (Score:4, Funny)
embiggen?
Parent
Re:trap (Score:4, Funny)
embiggen?
That's a perfectly cromulent ending, but I think AC was going for "extinguish".
Parent
Re:trap (Score:5, Funny)
I think Microsoft, for public relations purposes, needs to update the 3 E's (Embrace - Extend - Extinguish), to something more warm and fuzzy, and at the same time, descriptive of what they actually do:
Hug (you know, like you hug the one you love).
Stretch (like you do when you get ready for a good work out).
Cut Off Air Supply (like Netscape).
New acronym to HSCOAS - to be pronounced Husk-o-a$$.
Parent
Re:trap (Score:4, Funny)
"Cut Off Air Supply (like Netscape)."
Do they have agreements with Gordon Russell and Russell Hitchcock as well ??!!!
Parent
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish (Score:5, Insightful)
... doesn't seem to be working so well against open-source stuff. Maybe Microsoft's new strategy is to split and balkanize the open-source community with a bunch of conflicting licenses and communities.
Division, Discord, and Destruction
Parent
Re:Embrace, Extend, Extinguish (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe Microsoft's new strategy is to split and balkanize the open-source community with a bunch of conflicting licenses and communities.
Microsoft doesn't need to do that. The open-source community has been doing that just fine by themselves for years now.
Parent
Re:trap (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:trap (Score:4, Insightful)
With Windows I can just point out the "Designed for Windows X" logo and my customers will get devices that work every. single. time.
Normally, I wouldn't nitpick to this degree, but you seemed to place great emphasis on this point. Are you saying that you've never encountered a Windows user complaining that their printer just "stopped working?" It seems to me that every nontechnical person I know has expressed this frustration to me at one time or another.
Parent
Re:trap (Score:5, Interesting)
Notice how I got modded down? That is the usual "response" I get from the Linux users instead of actually responding to my post. But unlike those that use modpoints instead of their voice, I actually respond to those that post.
To respond to your post, yes I have had machines that have "stopped working" in my 15 years as a sales and repair guy, and you know what? A good 90%+ of the time the "fix" is simply re-installing the driver. Boom, no muss, no fuss, and MOST importantly-NO PAPERWEIGHTS! How is a retailer supposed to sell your product? How are we supposed to keep your product on our shelves? We don't have time to compile current lists of all the hardware being sold at the big three, and then spend countless hours trawling forums looking to find which 30% work, only to have to start all over again when more hardware comes through.
What are the answers I get when I put this before the Linux community? I always get variations on three themes-Bundle, Support Contract, or "demand that they give their code to kernel developers", and here I will respond and shoot down every single one of those arguments and show why they do not work. 1.-Bundle-Unless your name is Michael Dell, bundling will break you. The big retailers will ALWAYS be able to undercut your price, and unlike what most Linux users think folks do NOT feel "privileged" to run Linux or any other OS. They are looking at price and features and bundling makes Windows the cheaper option, as I don't have to carry all this non PC gear just to sell a machine,strike 1.
2.-support contracts. This little ditty is popular with corporate IT, who fail to understand that home sales are an ENTIRELY different animal than corporate IT. Home users HATE support contracts, see the Best Buy extended warranties for example. Again that pushes Linux into a more expensive bracket than Windows, as I will be spending more time trying to fix whatever problem they have with unsupported hardware than simply doing what I enjoy, building, fixing, and selling computers. Strike 2-
3.-Finally there is the "demand they give their code to the kernel devs" crowd, which I hate to break the news to them, is so full of fail it isn't even funny. First of all, have you ever worked retail? The brands there are NOT the same brands being sold by corporate. The companies that have released code-IBM,Intel,HP,ATI-what do they have in common? All have a large patent warchest and interest in the server/HPC platforms. That is nothing at all like retail, not even close. Any lawyer with half a brain would advise against giving source, just look at how Facebook today had to hand out source to a patent troll. The risk of patent trolls is simply too high for a lousy 2% market. A market I might add that thanks to the RMS "source code or nothing!" brigade have made it VERY hard to write binary drivers for Linux that will even function past a single point release. It has been 15 years, if the companies were gonna release source for all the items at Walmart they would have done it by now. Strike 3 and your product is off the shelves!
I apologize for the length, but I really do want this to change. I WANT to sell Linux, as I believe its superior security model makes it a better choice for those that simply surf and watch video. This would make for a nicer experience for the customers, and lower prices for me. But until they can actually go into Walmart and buy hardware without studying for a test, well I simply can't have it on my shelves. Because when an item doesn't work they will say their new machine is broken (which to them it is) and bring it back to me to fix it (which of course I can't without drivers) and then I have to either take the box back and eat the cost difference between new and used, or burn the customer and watch my rep going down the shitter.
I'm sorry if this offends Linux users, but in 2009 this is just insanity. Printer drivers should NOT need to be in the fricking kernel to work! Hardware manufacturers SHOULD be able to put a "Linux 32/64" driver folder on
Parent
Re:trap (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with Ubuntu, or any other Linux for that matter, is that the lack of a stable ABI and certification process for hardware makes it damned near impossible to sell at retail. Which wifi sticks work out of the box at Walmart? Which of the half dozen all in ones that are on sale this week at Staples work, and which are paperweights? Will this laptop at Best Buy work out of the box, INCLUDING wifi, and will it continue to function after the next update without jumping through CLI hoops from hell?
Which one of these devices will continue to work after the next Windows upgrade?
I tend not to throw out perfectly working equipment just because Microsoft decided to gratuitously change their device driver model. I find that 5yr old video and sound cards work just fine in recent releases of Linux, but aren't worth the manufacturers time to create new device drivers in order to operate under the latest versions of Windows. How much hardware was thrown out in order to update to Vista?
You keep buying your cheap crappy hardware at the Staples clearance sales. I'll buy decent equipment that is built to last longer than 6 months, and use an OS that doesn't obsolete it.
Parent
Wait a sec... (Score:5, Funny)
Are we in Soviet Russia now?
Re:Wait a sec... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Oh yeah? (Score:5, Funny)
we'll make our *own* Open Source only ours will be better and it'll have beer and hookers! Ha! Forget the beer and hookers! ... wait ... that's not how that goes...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I try to avoid the girls with open sores. Though ironically a trojan can actually protect you from malware and viruses.
Parental oversight (Score:4, Informative)
Seems like a meta-organization for open source entities, under the watchful eye of Redmond.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Translation: Major industry vendors will be able to get together, trash and make threats against real Open Source projects, all under the banner of OSS.
Re:Parental oversight (Score:4, Insightful)
Or even more like "Major industry vendors will be able to get together and keep working on open source software projects, and MS will convince their customers to run that open source software on Windows rather than on Linux".
MS realizes that a lot of open source software (servers, scripting languages, etc.) are in broad use and will stay that way. It's useless trying to make them go away. What MS can try to do is prevent that open source software from dragging people away from Windows.
MS wants visibility in the same space with specific open source projects. If they doesn't have that visibility, open source software (Apache, MySQL, whatever) will be associated mainly with open source platforms, but if MS can break that association, many organizations might end up running their open source applications on Windows. That means keeping their customers, and many open source projects don't even compete directly with MS products because MS doesn't have a similar offering, so MS might not even lose that much by advocating selected projects.
Creating bindings between open source software -- say, a scripting language -- and MS platforms such as .NET may help MS with that as well. You know, the whole embrace, extend, etc. thing.
Parent
This is mainly a Tax Strategy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is mainly a Tax Strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure it it's that or the fact that they are still trying to be the "center" of technology. It's been revealed in internal docs that they'd rather see their system or standard being used rather than someone else. If they can push their way into Open Source development and corner the market on it, they can phase out licenses they don't agree with and form the community how they like instead of how the community does.
Parent
A little naive, as usual. (Score:5, Insightful)
"We believe that commercial software companies and the developers that work for them under-participate in open source projects," Microsoft stated.
While I applaud the intent to appear to be open source friendly, they haven't yet begun to address two of the major issues with Microsoft and open source:
Now, here we have Microsoft reinventing the wheel, aka sourceforge. I could even go for a BSD style license, or even public domain. But I have one question:
Would they host, and allow development on ReactOS? (for those who don't know, it's an open source Windows clone)
How Codeplex and Microsoft deal with this question would reveal far more about their true intentions than what their pundits say about their open source attitude.
Company wide MS meeting today (Score:3, Interesting)
My guess (Score:5, Funny)
MS is tying up traffic in Seattle today to bring all of their people together in one of the city's sports stadiums. Anybody know if that is the usual monkey-boy chair toss or is something up?
The stage is dark. Suddenly, a catchy theme pours from the speakers. It's... could it be... YES! Rick Astley! The crowd groans uncomfortably.
One of the screens showing the Microsoft logo goes blue. "Stop 0x0000000A or IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL".
Steve Ballmer appears through a fine mist of perspiration twisted into delicate symmetrical whorls by an army of desperate interns, hair dryers in hand, all aiming at his armpits from just offstage. The humidity in the room increases by an order of magnitude.
"Seven, Seven, Seven! GIVE IT UP FOR ME!"
The stage erupts in blue flame. Mystical symbols are traced on the faces of aghast onlookers as Crawzogorium, the Infernal Keeper Of Ring 0 materializes above the podium.
"WHO DARES SUMMON THE MASTER OF THE HIERARCHICAL PROTECTION DOMAINS?"
Crawzogorium notices the bluescreen. "TAINT! WHO HAS DISREGARDED MY LAW OF KERNEL PROCESS ACCESS? I WILL PUNISH YOU NOW!"
The light in the rooms fades to a dark brown, and a tortured scream is heard. It's Ballmer. His interns have dropped their hair dryers and fled the scene. He's fallen to his knees and is scrubbing at his underarm area with the tatters of his shirt.
Things look bleak for our hero and his audience? How will it all end? Tune in next post!
This post brought to you by AXE - It's how dirty guys get clean.
Parent
Lurking in the inky blackness of the void... (Score:5, Funny)
Remember that butt ugly fish with a mouth full of razor-sharp teeth that lives way down deep and has a worm-like appendage that dances tantalizingly just in front of its mouth? That's what I thought of when I read this story.
It's perfectly utlitarian (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe they're trying to develop a functional open source movement within their development culture? After all, Microsoft sells a platform. The DOS free software movement was a boon to their platform, not a detraction.
We're not looking at a war of ideas, we're looking at a basic platform war. Take Apple, for instance; they sell a high-end commercial platform which heavily leverages the open source ecosystem to augment and flesh-out their platform. Commercial software can be obnoxious, even to a platform vendor: it works against its platform, it puts branding over adherence to user experience, and it makes computer usage frustrating.
If the Windows platform were viewed from the angle of its development community instead of as a vessel for shareware, then they might be able to preserve and further their platform against more open markets (even Apple) coming up against them.
The full F/OSS stack (Linux-FOSS-and above) is a weak platform technically, but a strong idea. Microsoft doesn't have to give up the idea of a professionally maintained platform to leverage an open source third party software ecosystem. Better within their sphere of influence than outside of it. Microsoft is offering an extremely friendly and accessible development environment to its users already; it would be a boon to foster an influx of new platform-defining free applications that add value while not becoming an issue of anti-trust.
Tree Of Knowledge & The Serpent (Score:3, Interesting)
People who develop and know how to use Linux are a different bred. They tend to be self reliant and innovative. Corporations like MS tend to naturally harbour fiefdoms around which barriers are effected that can stifle just the type of innovation Linux is driven by. The adage "faster nervous systems eat slower nervous systems" can apply where institutions allow barriers like glass ceilings to protect managers, the barriers erected can be seen as speed bumps and additional costs that Open Source skirts. Open Source may look haphazard in it's development but then so does evolution and both do OK in the long run.
A lot of Open Source people use Linux and similar OSes because they need to be able to innovate on the spot and not go begging and pleading with Corporate masters for permission to alter a bit of code. Open Source, in my experience, is about innovation and extensibility. MS expected Linux to die of SIDS in its crib. It didn't. I now think MS sees the power and benefits of Open Source and is looking to undermine Linux by offering a similar environment to lure academics and scientists to a similar platform while mining their innovations.
It's kinda like the serpent wants to take a bite out of the apple.
Regarding a 501(c)(6) organization... (Score:3, Insightful)
From IRC 501(c)(6) Organizations â" page K-4 [irs.gov]
FAIL!
mixed signals (Score:3, Insightful)
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/09/linux-foundation-to-microsoft-stop-secretly-attacking-linux.ars [arstechnica.com]
While I dont think theres some grand plan to kill open source, I see absolutely no reason to trust MS at all.
Even if Ballmer swears on a stack of dried lawyers, that means nothing tomorrow if someone else gets the job.
The MS engineers probably mean well, but have no say in the end.
And ofcourse theres all the crap theyve pulled in the past, should this just be forgiven?
There MS goes again (Score:3, Insightful)
"That's right, the company that is still banging the patent drum against open source now has its own 501(c)(6) open source foundation."
Taking a few profitless applications from the bone pile and making them open source while patenting everything else like crazy was IBM's idea. Another example of non-innovation by Microsoft.
Will anyone take them seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's right, the company that is still banging the patent drum against open source now has it's own 501c open source foundation.
As far as I've noticed, MS has just protected *other* patent-trolls by getting the patents what they need. I haven't noticed any misuse by them (if they have, please inform me too :)
Considering how they continue to attack Linux and open source will anyone take them seriously?
How have they actually attacked Linux? The same way that Linux attackes Windows, aka competition? Competition is good and will only improve products.
Just because Microsoft's main business model is in closed source, it doesn't mean a company that big cant contribute to open source at all. Their Bing search engine actually ignored [thinkdigit.com]
Re:Coal.. Kettle? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Coal.. Kettle? (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. Microsoft sued first and TomTom responded with a countersuit.
See http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE52J1IE20090320 [reuters.com]
Parent
Re:Coal.. Kettle? (Score:4, Informative)
The way it went was actually this:
1. TomTom warned Microsoft that the latter infringes on TomTom's patents. This isn't the same as suing, but it can only be interpreted as the first step towards doing that. The purpose of notification is to make sure that, as far as law is concerned, the infringing party infringes knowingly; if they don't stop, the penalties grow significantly (3x, if I recall correctly).
2. In response, Microsoft sues TomTom.
3. In response to that suit, TomTom sues Microsoft over the same patents it warned about at step 1.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
mod parent up.
The Microsoft Corporation owes its shareholders a genuine effort to make money and to do the right thing for the long term. I really can't see how anyone could make a business case for Microsoft to have released Windows or Office to be Open Source - It would have been a highly risky strategy, with no "un-do" possible.
Here, they are trying to dip their toes into Open Source, and the summary bashes them. Geez, guys, get a life!
Re:Coal.. Kettle? (Score:4, Insightful)
Here, they are trying to dip their toes into Open Source, and the summary bashes them. Geez, guys, get a life!
The problem is that it is far too early to tell if this is just another attempt at "embrace, extend, extinguish" -- something MS has a very long and well documented history of doing, or the final stage of "ignorance, denial, attack, accept."
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they were ever smart enough to do a Good Thing â the world would support them because they are so well known. As much as I hate Microsoft personally if they changed, I'd be a pretty loyal guy. Everyone would. We could use true and open unified computing if done properly.
However, since we have that thing called history, and it can't be cleared like our browsers one, most people tend to believe that leopards don't change their spots.
I give it 6 years for Microsoft to evolve or die, really.
Re:Coal.. Kettle? (Score:5, Interesting)
Since you have already been modded troll I shouldn't be feeding you but just this time.
Yes they are obligated to maximize profit for their shareholders, to that goal, it makes no sense to release Windows or MS Office as FOSS, that's not what I want, nor what the majority of FOSS users want either. Except for the minority of loons that actually do want that, the majority of FOSS users and developers understand MS is under no obligation to release Windows or MS Office.
Still we need a Free, Open Source operative system and office suite, a non hostile system that doesn't regards its users as thieves by default, An office suit that doesn't antagonize us, insert malicious secret codes in our documents, and OS that has the features we want, not the features someone else wants us to have and be limited to.
So we make our own. No actions from MS are required. But MS has acted. Against us, every time they poison and flood an open standards forum, every time they bribe a politician who is considering going free, every time they they build intentional incompatibilities in their software, every time they scare clients with bogus patent threats, every time they come up with deceiving names to inject noise in the conversation, like .net, like officeopen instead of openoffice, like shared source instead of opens source, and now this fake open source foundation.
That is what we are complaining about, we don't want them to release their products as FOSS, we just want them to stop playing dirty.
Parent
Re:Coal.. Kettle? (Score:5, Informative)
Link [groklaw.net]
Note that MS tried to keep the auction secret, but apparently someone within AST clued OIN in as to what was happening.
Even though AST claims they are not into litigation, there be demons within.
Codeplex will be no different.
Did you hear the news? Buy a copy of Windows7, and get a discount on new designer sheep clothing.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Tools? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure, but my first inclination is that they probably want to encourage the development of Open Source software which is based upon Microsoft Technologies and Tools, so that such projects still require Windows to run, and maybe require Visual Studio, SQL Server, etc to build/implement/install?
I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't be *too* upset about Open Source software which depends upon Microsoft's software to actually work or be built.