Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Open Source Microsoft Programming Windows News

Microsoft's CoApp To Help OSS Development, Deployment 293

Posted by timothy
from the meet-the-world's-biggest-foss-vendor dept.
badpazzword writes "Microsoft employee Garrett Serack announces he has received the green light to work full time on CoApp, an .msi-based package management system aiming to bring a wholly native toolchain for OSS development and deployment. This will hopefully bring more open source software on Windows, which will bring OSS to more users, testers and developers. Serack is following the comments at Ars Technica, so he might also follow them here. The launchpad project is already up."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft's CoApp To Help OSS Development, Deployment

Comments Filter:
  • by His name cannot be s (16831) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @07:47PM (#31783782) Journal

    Ask me about CoApp, I'll tell ya everything ya wanna know.

    Garrett Serack
    CoApp Project Owner

    • by Meshach (578918) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @07:53PM (#31783824)
      In the same vein feel free to ask me about Linux.

      Linus Torvalds
      Linux Kernel Founder
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by h4rr4r (612664)

      When will MS be pulling the rug out from under the community?

      How much of a fight will we seen when someone tries to packup an app that competes with an MS product?

      • by His name cannot be s (16831) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @08:00PM (#31783904) Journal

        Well, considering that I spent several months hacking thru red tape to get VP approval, and the enthusiasm that I've been getting, I'm pretty damn confident that we're clear sailing.

        And given the first three targets that on my radar are PHP, Apache and Python (and the 40 or so shared library dependencies), and that's what I took to the VP, I'm fairly confident that's not going to be an issue.

        And, on top of that, MS doesn't own the project, I do. "Shutting it down" is not an option for them.

        • But won't all this lead to competition for Sharepoint/IIS/Office for Windows users? Why would Microsoft want to sanction any alternatives to their proprietary offerings? In other words, what's the angle?

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Curiously, given microsoft's recent wrist slappings by the EU, fostering the development of "Competing" products could help microsoft, rather than harm it;

            Take for instance, the recent "Browser choice" screen. If Microsoft had been fostering a package downloader at that point in time, then they would have not needed to do anything to comply with the EU. Their OS would already have IE by default, and "Offer" a nice little package handler for those "Other Browsers".

            If the EU were to press, and try to stick M

            • by CAIMLAS (41445)

              I just dont think MS is overly concerned that it will compete with their software ecosystem at this point, and is more convinced that government regulators are the bigger threat.

              Yep, exactly. As it pertains to Sharepoint, the more something sucks, the more it seems to get broad adoption early on.

              Quite smart of Microsoft to make Sharepoint a "killer app" at that - all-encompassing and utterly impossible to replace in whole.

          • by His name cannot be s (16831) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @09:08PM (#31784536) Journal

            If it does, so be it.

            I've spent the last couple of years at Microsoft working to make PHP better on Windows, and validating PHP apps including CMS systems like Drupal on Windows. Seems to me they want some competition.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by TheRaven64 (641858)

              Seems to me they want some competition.

              No they don't. They make most of their money from two things: Windows and Office. Everything else exists to make these two products more competitive. The only reason that Microsoft develops things like Visual Studio, for example, is to encourage third parties to add value to their platform.

              IIS does not make money for Microsoft. If Apache is a better web server than IIS on Windows, then that's fine, as long as you're still paying for the Windows license. Especially if you're using the ISAPI module so

        • by Culture20 (968837)

          And, on top of that, MS doesn't own the project, I do. "Shutting it down" is not an option for them.

          Microsoft CEO: "Buy him out, boys!"
          His name cannot be s (16831): "Hey, what the hell's going on?"
          "Oh, I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks. Muhahaahahahaa!"

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by h4rr4r (612664)

          How are you handling dependencies?
          Will this be the standard windows every app carts around all its own libs, wasted space and outdated/insecure funland?

          • by His name cannot be s (16831) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @08:57PM (#31784436) Journal

            No.

            My intent is to completely do away with the practice of everybody shipping every damn shared library. It's one of the things that piss me off the most. I've got a very workable solution that uses WinSxS to cleanly handle this.

            It is extremely important that there is a unified method for sharing libraries between apps.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by h4rr4r (612664)

              If you only succeed in getting windows folks to learn this lesson you should be made a saint.

              • by Animaether (411575) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @10:07PM (#31784964) Journal

                My intent is to completely do away with the practice of everybody shipping every damn shared library.

                If you only succeed in getting windows folks to learn this lesson you should be made a saint.

                The major problem with this is that, as mentioned, Windows doesn't have a package manager, and Microsoft keeps telling developers that they cannot expect a user to have internet connectivity.

                So when you compiled your application with Visual Studio 2008 SP1 with the ATL update installed - which means every user of your software will have to have the Visual C++ 2008 SP1 ATL runtime redistributable package installed as well, you're left with scant few options.

                The most reasonable of which are:
                A. If you're distributing something boxed, to include the redistributable package on the media (CD/DVD/USB stick/whatever).

                B. If you're distributing something via downloads:
                B.a. Include it because - again - you're not supposed to assume the user will have connectivity.
                B.b. Don't include it, but detect whether the user has it installed and has internet access, and then offer to download it and install it (silently or otherwise).

                Of course for option B.b., Microsoft further seems to suggest that you do not link to -their- download pages (after all, the URLs could change, etc.) but instead host the binaries yourself.

                The only reason, thus, that Windows developers tend to include or download shared libraries at runtime, is simply because there -isn't- a package manager for Windows.

                So don't blame the developers - blame the lack of a package manager. Which I fully welcomed the last time a topic hinting at a package manager popped up on /.
                Unfortunately it seems like they would be two rather separate projects?
                http://it.slashdot.org/story/10/03/24/189248/Microsoft-To-Distribute-Third-Party-Patches [slashdot.org]

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by dudpixel (1429789)

              How do you go about handling different versions of a library?

              Will we eventually see the day where Microsoft has a central location for shared libraries in Windows (writable only by "root") and also a decent package management system, you know, like apt/rpm?

              This isn't a flame, just pointing out some things that would make Windows fantastic for me. I really really really love the directory structure and package management of linux, and the benefits that it brings. If Microsoft could bring some of that goodn

        • I'm pretty damn confident that we're clear sailing.

          I'm fairly confident that's not going to be an issue.

          And, on top of that, MS doesn't own the project, I do. "Shutting it down" is not an option for them.

          Um, then what are you doing wasting your time here on /.? Shouldn't you be locked in a caffeine fueled coding frenzy, programming until your fingers are bleeding? Open source software won't write itself, you know ;-)

          His name cannot be s (16831)

          Is that a hint? Does that mean it could be one of the other 25 letters? Or maybe one of the 20 remaining consonants?

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            Um, then what are you doing wasting your time here on /.? Shouldn't you be locked in a caffeine fueled coding frenzy, programming until your fingers are bleeding? Open source software won't write itself, you know ;-)

            I know!!!!

            "His name cannot be s (16831)"

            Is that a hint? Does that mean it could be one of the other 25 letters? Or maybe one of the 20 remaining consonants?

            Well, ya see... with a five-digit slashdot-id I originally had "His name cannot be Spoken" as my name... then they did some database truncation about 12 or so years ago, and I lost some letters.

            And ya can't change your name on Slashdot, and I didn't wanna give up my 5 digit ID. :D

            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by TheRaven64 (641858)

              Well, ya see... with a five-digit slashdot-id I originally had "His name cannot be Spoken" as my name... then they did some database truncation about 12 or so years ago, and I lost some letters.

              MySQL: Because your data probably wasn't that important anyway.

      • by sortius_nod (1080919) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @08:34PM (#31784232) Homepage

        It all feels too much like a dirty beat up van in a shopping mall parking lot with "free candy" painted on the side...

    • by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @08:14PM (#31784048)

      Ask me about CoApp, I'll tell ya everything ya wanna know.

      How do I know that MS won't file a software patent related to this work?

    • by causality (777677) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @08:24PM (#31784150)

      Ask me about CoApp, I'll tell ya everything ya wanna know.

      Garrett Serack CoApp Project Owner

      I'll bite. Given Microsoft's track record, particularly its embrace-and-extend tactics, its questionable business practices, its status as a convicted monopolist, its use of vendor lock-in, its related use of proprietary file formats, and the Halloween e-mails from top management clearly defining Open Source as an enemy, I have just one question: why should we trust them?

      Most (nearly all) of the upper management people who arranged everything I just listed are still working at Microsoft.

      "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

    • Hey Garrett, I'm cautiously optimistic.

      But I really have to comment on one of the items from your announcement post, regarding the aims of the project:

      Also be Windows admin friendly. Even if it's open source, you shouldn't have to be a developer to put Open Source applications on Windows.

      Is this some kind of back-handed comment based on the general view at Microsoft about Open-source software, or the general view that MS would like to push out to userland? That people should use MS OSS because you need t

      • by jtdennis (77869)

        I'm a Windows admin that's also comfortable in the Linux world, and work with someone that doesn't have Linux experience. I can tell you from experience that I am much more comfortable diving into config files trying to get something to work than he is.
        Many people with primarily a Windows background expect config to be done via the UI and not via text files as many OSS projects are. I believe that this is what he was implying.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by h4rr4r (612664)

          At least you can diff a config file. Try that with a gui.

          Text based config, with an option gui/wizard really should be the only way this sort of thing gets done.

      • by His name cannot be s (16831) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @09:02PM (#31784480) Journal

        Is this some kind of back-handed comment based on the general view at Microsoft about Open-source software, or the general view that MS would like to push out to userland? That people should use MS OSS because you need to be a developer to use it on other platforms?

        No-no.. exactly the opposite

        Have you tried to roll out some OSS apps on Windows?

        On Linux it's two clicks, and BAM! Done.

        On Windows, it's almost never that easy to setup OSS apps.

        The problem I see is that it doesn't take a Developer on Linux to get Apache installed and configured. Why should it on Windows?

        • by h4rr4r (612664)

          Because windows lacks proper package management?

          Windows has some nice user stuff, but the package management situation is a total joke. Something like aptitude or apt-get or even yum would be huge.

        • by styrotech (136124) on Friday April 09, 2010 @12:20AM (#31785752)

          As an admin that maintains both Linux and Windows systems, this sounds really cool. Hopefully the guys writing the Tomcat AJP connectors for IIS will use it (that stuff can be a nightmare).

          To me though the initial setup is never the main problem (except with AJP/IIS hehe), it's the ongoing maintenance and patching of 3rd party stuff that suffers the most on Windows.

          Sure Windows Update / WSUS make all the MS stuff easy, but 3rd party Windows apps are a nightmare to keep up to date network wide. They all have their own separate update mechanisms that mostly require an admin being logged on to work.

          I've love to see Windows Update and WSUS allow 3rd party repos (eg the equivalent of adding stuff to /etc/apt/sources.list) so that practically everything could be patched via Windows Update / WSUS without admin intervention on each machine.

          I don't know if your work will end up tackling all that, or one day get incorporated by the existing patch mechanisms, but I can still dream :)

          Best of luck anyway.

    • by iYk6 (1425255)

      This sounds like a package management system for Windows, along the same veins of dpkg/apt and rpm/yum. Windows has been lagging in this area for years, and one of the reasons that it is so insecure and slow is because every program either runs in the background at startup, or doesn't get updated on a regular schedule. That wasn't my question, just how I view the situation.

      Why limit this to open source? It would be great if the users could update every program easily and painlessly, at least the ones that u

      • by His name cannot be s (16831) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @09:06PM (#31784514) Journal

        Why limit this to open source? It would be great if the users could update every program easily and painlessly, at least the ones that use this new system.

        I'm Busted. It isn't really restricted to Open Source... but that's my mission. Commercial apps will be able to play just fine in this ecosystem.

        I am assuming that this system will allow easy and painless upgrading like on most Linux systems. Is that true? Will it have automatic dependency handling and command line installation?

        Yes. Painless and automatic dependency handling, and yes command line tools. You are singing the chorus to my theme song!

        • by Anpheus (908711)

          Powershell support with proper verb-noun command structure and piping support?

          I'm disappointed that I even have to add the last bit, but Powershell stuff from Microsoft differs greatly on supporting the implicit standards. There are some modules and snapins that are really good, there are some that are... not so much.

      • by Jenming (37265)

        Linux does not have painless upgrading. It has painless updating to whatever has been put in apt-get/whatever. This is often (always?) not the most recent version of the software. I guess its something but on Windows if you let the programs update themselves whenever you use them they are more up to date, though it is a pain in the ass.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by h4rr4r (612664)

          And you get to have 1000 updaters all running on startup, each dragging along who knows what shared libs that instead of being properly shared are whatever version the app maintainer used.

          Some distros do package up the latest and greatest. Normally though they use the latest update to the version of the app they shipped with, which makes sense from a support point of view.

    • by grcumb (781340) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @08:39PM (#31784264) Homepage Journal

      Ask me about CoApp, I'll tell ya everything ya wanna know.

      Garrett Serack CoApp Project Owner

      Okay, serious questions:

      Assuming that you've looked at APT and similar packaging tools, and given that you're still convinced that there's a 'Windows Way' (your term) to handle deployment that differs from Linux best practices, how do you plan to address:

      • Package Repositories - This is one of the main strengths of Debian and related distros. Do you think it's even possible to replicate this level of community control in Windows? I know you've mentioned decentralisation, but have you considered the implications of such an approach? What is the cost of failure to affect consistent, formalised management of package builds?
      • Dependancy Management - This issue is largely done and dusted on Linux, but remains a dog's breakfast on Windows (albeit not as frustrating today as it was in the mid-90s). In the absence of centralised repositories and the Unix toolchain philosophy, how do you propose to cope better with dependancies?
      • File locations - How do you propose to manage the proper placement of libraries etc. when the conventions concerning where to put such files are not nearly as well defined on Windows? I'm suggesting here that you need cultural leverage rather than technical answers. You need to change perceptions, not toolkits.
      • Security - Do you think it's even possible to replicate one of the main strengths of Linux package repositories: the ability to curtail security risks such as malware and flawed code?
      • Scripting Interfaces - Say what you like about make and other command-line utilities, but as a busy sysadmin, I consider GUI package management a waste of my valuable time. If I'm going to deploy regular security updates, for example, I want to know that I can script every aspect of the operation. Even the tab-completion features in aptitude make it many times more efficient than a point-and-click interface. What is the potential for scripted deployment/management of packages under your system? Why?

      I guess it's clear by now that I'm suggesting that what Windows needs is not another new way to do things. Package management in Debian, for example, is vastly more advanced and sophisticated than anything on Windows, and yet you feel the need to do things the 'Windows Way'. Don't you think you'd be better off learning from others who have been dealing successfully with package management for over a decade now?

      These are all serious questions and I expect to be challenged by your replies. I applaud your courage in taking on this huge task. I also think that you're going to need to learn a lot more humility than you've demonstrated so far if you want to achieve something better than a new brand of anarchy in packaging.

      • by His name cannot be s (16831) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @09:25PM (#31784664) Journal

        Assuming that you've looked at APT and similar packaging tools, and given that you're still convinced that there's a 'Windows Way' (your term) to handle deployment that differs from Linux best practices, how do you plan to address:

        Yes, I've worked with APT and RPM for a very very long time now. The reason I'm convinced there is a 'Windows way' is because it's a different system that Linux; yes, I've learned a lot about PMS from Linux, and I know how to apply that knowledge to Windows.

        Package Repositories - This is one of the main strengths of Debian and related distros. Do you think it's even possible to replicate this level of community control in Windows? I know you've mentioned decentralisation, but have you considered the implications of such an approach? What is the cost of failure to affect consistent, formalised management of package builds?

        I have a plan for allowing any publisher to publish packages in the CoApp ecosystem, provided they meet two qualifications:
        - They must be able to host their repository meta-data on an SSL protected connection.
        - All packages must be digitally signed with a certificate that chains back to to a commonly-accepted CA.

        Dependancy Management - This issue is largely done and dusted on Linux, but remains a dog's breakfast on Windows (albeit not as frustrating today as it was in the mid-90s). In the absence of centralised repositories and the Unix toolchain philosophy, how do you propose to cope better with dependancies?

        I'm working with the developer of WiX to ensure that we can trivially build chained MSI packages that have the necessary smarts to properly manage this. Kind-of mixing in something like ldconfig with the Windows SxS library management.

        File locations - How do you propose to manage the proper placement of libraries etc. when the conventions concerning where to put such files are not nearly as well defined on Windows? I'm suggesting here that you need cultural leverage rather than technical answers. You need to change perceptions, not toolkits.

        Yes. The change starts with PHP, Apache, and Python, and the 40+ packages needed to build them (community members from each are already on board) Half of the project is setting some intelligent standards, and then bootstrapping the ecosystem with packages to enable other software to follow.

        Security - Do you think it's even possible to replicate one of the main strengths of Linux package repositories: the ability to curtail security risks such as malware and flawed code?

        Yes. By requiring code-signing (and I've got a plan for opening that up without cost for smaller projects) we can replicate the benefits of MD5 and PGP signatures found in the Linux world.

        Scripting Interfaces - Say what you like about make and other command-line utilities, but as a busy sysadmin, I consider GUI package management a waste of my valuable time. If I'm going to deploy regular security updates, for example, I want to know that I can script every aspect of the operation. Even the tab-completion features in aptitude make it many times more efficient than a point-and-click interface. What is the potential for scripted deployment/management of packages under your system? Why?

        I agree 100%. Scripting interfaces are an absolute requirement, and will likely come well before the GUI.

        Think of it as a clean adaptation of the same concepts to the model that will be attractive to Windows developers.

        I also think that you're going to need to learn a lot more humility than you've demonstrated so far if you want to achieve something better than a new brand of anarchy in packaging.

        I apologize if I'm coming off arrogant. Frankly it's taken an extremely long time to convince the powers-that-be at Microsoft that Linux's package management is stellar compared to Windows. It's also not near as hard or large as it sounds, I'm walking on the shoulders of giants here, both in the Linux and Windows worlds.

        • Dammit! I pooched some quote tags!

          Sorry about that. Should have previewed. *sigh*

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Sun (104778)

          I have a plan for allowing any publisher to publish packages in the CoApp ecosystem, provided they meet two qualifications:
          - They must be able to host their repository meta-data on an SSL protected connection.
          - All packages must be digitally signed with a certificate that chains back to to a commonly-accepted CA.

          Doesn't seem like a very good solution. The whole point of APT is its ability for ANYONE to open repositories, including digitally signed repositories.

          If, for whatever reason, you don't like PGP, that's fine. Go with X509. Just don't force a SPECIFIC root CA - allow the package user to choose which is his CA of choice (one or more). This way, for example, a company can set up a local repository to push to its own employees.

          Same goes with where you host this. Your answer did not make it clear whether any ser

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Does this service run on dead babies, or are they still alive and crying as you shovel them into the gaping maw of endless darkness that powers it?

    • So how come it's not being called CANE?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Having read your blogpost, I can see what you're trying to do, but as a Linux/Unix developer, I have zero interest in running through Windows like hoops. *But* I do go to great lengths to follow POSIX standards, and make sure that my autoconf tarballs are clean, and I don't expect this to change any time soon (or even not so soon).

      If your target audience is like me, then you're best off creating an automated conversion tool that can take a standard tarball and create an MSI package (or whatever) to your s

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by k8to (9046)

      Why are you using MSI? Really.

      It's a horror show of a backend, a crazy badly engineered database. Really, it's worse even than RPM.

      You really should figure out what you would need, and design that, and then get the OS people to accept that you've replaced their mindless zombie subsystem with something non-awful.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      What is Microsoft paying for human souls these days?
  • by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @07:50PM (#31783804)
    ... MS pulls the plug on this and leaves OSS developers hanging high and dry? Or worse, pulls some slight of hand with licensing, copyrights or patents and forces OSS dev's to stop in their tracks waiting for MS's next move?
    • by ChrisMounce (1096567) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @08:01PM (#31783912)
      Maybe they recognize that there's a ton of open source software that people really want to use, and that easy installs of OSS on Windows adds value to Windows.

      Like how they contributed some Linux stuff a while back to make it easier to run Linux in a VM... with Windows as the host machine (I'm not clear on the details, so I'm probably getting the terminology wrong).
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DigiShaman (671371)

        Not only that, but they have two giant companies to compete with. Namely Apple and Google. This industry is cut-throat, and the loss of momentum is extremely dangerous.

        Embracing OSS while at the same time keeping control over the direction of your platform is the name of the game.

    • by aBaldrich (1692238) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @08:51PM (#31784378)
      Do you know what was the first thing I thought when reading the article and the project's launchpad? Halloween Document II. Why does Microsoft need to support Free Software? I mean, they claim to have everything they need, their new shiny should 7 have it all.
      This article's summary should be something along the lines of: Microsoft embraces OSS. How long before they extend their dirty tactics to OS? I don't trust them.
      The jewels of OSS were built because we, developers, needed them. We needed an OS and made Gnu, and Linux. We needed a web server and made Apache. We needed a GUI and made GNOME, KDE and Compiz. We needed a web browser and made Firefox.
      Now Microsoft needs package managing software, and they really believe we are going to build it for them. Laughable.
  • Native to what OS? Let me guess, windows.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dragoniz3r (992309)
      Is there something wrong with that?

      From TFA:
      • Place binaries, libraries and header files in a logical and consistent location
      • Facilitate sharing of components and allow multiple projects to easily both participate and consume them
      • Allow for upgrades and patching of both libraries and applications
      • Be Windows developer friendly. No forcing of building using ‘make’, but rather taking advantage of the nifty IDEs we already have

      Clearly these are horrible goals and this should by no means be done, sim

  • by nurb432 (527695) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @08:19PM (#31784100) Homepage Journal

    And more *windows* users, more windows license, more vendor lockin, and fewer alternative OS's.. Ya, real nice of them to 'help' us out. No thanks.

    • by im_thatoneguy (819432) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @11:13PM (#31785368)

      And more *windows* users, more windows license, more vendor lockin, and fewer alternative OS's...

      Until Windows users realize that all their favorite apps run great on Linux as well as Windows.

      If chrome runs on Windows and Linux and you just use Chrome most of the day then it becomes trivial to switch over to Linux since your app will look relatively familiar. The largest obstacle to Linux adoption besides its contempt for its users is the lack of applications people are familiar with. If someone got used to pidgen then they would be less likely to revolt when they tried using Linux.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    *cough cough*

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

    *cough cough*

    History is not on your side. I hope, for all of us, that your intentions are noble. If they are, I hope those who back you and/or succeed you hold to that ideal. Thankfully, even if they're not these programs will live on in their desired format on other software platforms.

    Best of luck.

  • If Mozilla can't figure out how to make an msi on their own, maybe they could get some help.
  • which will conversely bring OSS more users, testers and developers

    Not really. most people who test/develop OSS software already do it, or will do when they have free time. As for users, there are about 4 types of users for any Windows program.

    A) The person who uses whatever something that is forced on them. Such people will blindly use IE, Firefox, Opera, whatever as long as a boss says they must use it or it comes pre-installed.

    B) The person who thinks that they get what they pay for. These are the weird people who we see -buying- boxed software, thinking that

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Actually, this will be mighty handy for developers trying to use OSS libraries on Windows. Right now, it's a mess, if you've got more than a few, and they have mutual dependencies - you get all kinds of wonderful problems with precompiled binaries, such as having them compiled with different compilers (MinGW vs VC++), or with different compiler switches that break ABI compatibility, etc.

      And compiling from the source is fun because you have to deal with all the trivial things such as include & library pa

  • by WindBourne (631190) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @10:28PM (#31785076) Journal
    All those that believe that MS is really interested in OSS are total idiots. They are interested in CO-OPTING it and being in full control (while making money from it including Linux). This is simply another part of their plan.
  • by codepunk (167897) on Thursday April 08, 2010 @10:33PM (#31785112)

    I am feeling generous this evening and decided I would donate the first line of code to this
    fine project. I relinquish all copyrights on the following line of code, feel free to do with
    it as you wish.

    #include "ie6.h"

No hardware designer should be allowed to produce any piece of hardware until three software guys have signed off for it. -- Andy Tanenbaum

Working...