Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Programming IT Technology

Microsoft WiX Code Released to SourceForge.Net 686

nberardi writes "On Monday, April 5, 2004, as part of the Shared Source Initiative, Microsoft released the source code for the Windows Installer XML (WiX) developer tool to SourceForge under the IBM Common Public License or CPL. The WiX project is the first Shared Source Initiative to go "public" on Source Forge rather than a Microsoft site. It is also the first to use an externally created Open Source license. Microsoft supports the idea that a software developer should be free to choose how they license their work and for the goals of WiX, the CPL was the right fit. Is this another ploy from Microsoft to not look like the bad guy, or do you think they are embracing on the Open Source movement?" Slashdot and SourceForge are both part of OSDN.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft WiX Code Released to SourceForge.Net

Comments Filter:
  • by Da Fokka ( 94074 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:01AM (#8769197) Homepage
    I thought April 1st was 4 days ago?!
    • by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:07AM (#8769278)
      No, given Microsoft's history on releases, it's right on time for April Fools according to MS timetables.
    • Hmm.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cshark ( 673578 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:57AM (#8769915)
      Interesting. I think this is a good example of Microsoft testing the waters. I don't think Windows will ever be open source, but this is certainly a good start. Just think how great it would be for a company like microsoft, if they worked with open source developers the way IBM does.

      I wonder what the open source landscape would be like if Microsoft were not regarded as the great satan.

      It would certainly be interesting.
      • Re:Hmm.... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 )


        Just think how great it would be for a company like microsoft, if they worked with open source developers the way IBM does.

        Microsoft may very well be destined to follow IBM's path. After all, much of Microsoft's most despised business tactics are simply refined IBM techniques.

        IBM lost control of the IT market when hardware began to shift towards decentralized microcomputers (not that the heavier iron part of IT is entirely gone). It shifted further when IBM lost control of the platform they design

  • Uhm (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dark Lord Seth ( 584963 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:01AM (#8769204) Journal

    Someone send Lucifer some mittens and one of those funky Russian hats... Must be mighty cold down there right now...

    • Re:Uhm (Score:3, Funny)

      by Jugalator ( 259273 )
      I heard Sun and Microsoft are sending material there to help him warm himself, also feeling somewhat guilty to the problems they've caused down there...
    • by QEDog ( 610238 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:29AM (#8769568)
      They released the Win2k source some time ago after all, remember?
      • Re:This is not news (Score:3, Informative)

        by jc42 ( 318812 )
        Yeah; Microsoft released Windows source - to the Chinese government. And after the techies looked it over, the Chinese government decided to standardize on linux. There was a rumor that the techies recommended that MS Windows be banned in China, but this was too radical a step by China's current capitalist rulers. ;-)

        (Hey, maybe I can get a "troll" rating, too. And maybe this will be read in China, they'll put me on a "banned" list, and they'll stop sending me all that "big5" spam ...)
    • Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bonch ( 38532 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:33AM (#8769628)
      Instead of actually discussing what the source code is or the technology behind it...the rest of the Slashdot discussion here will be about Microsoft's "motivations" for releasing it and what their plans "really" are.

      Has anyone here who's posting actually downloaded it and tried it yet?
      • by Coryoth ( 254751 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @11:00AM (#8769965) Homepage Journal
        Has anyone here who's posting actually downloaded it and tried it yet?

        Come on now, most slashdotters don't even manage to read the article, let alone read, download, extract, compile and execute the article. I think you're pissing into the wind with this one.

        Jedidiah.
      • Re:Prediction (Score:4, Insightful)

        by AstroDrabb ( 534369 ) * on Monday April 05, 2004 @12:23PM (#8770826)
        It sounds as if you are suggesting that everyone just forget about the tons of unethical and underhanded tactics from MS? At the end of the day MS is still MS and they care about control and the bottom line, in that order.

        MS first tried their "shared" source initiative, and it was basically a flop because of the very restrictive license which basically only allowed you to look at the code. Now they are taking another shot with a real Open Source license, though as I suspected, they are releasing a low profile, and uninteresting project. There are tons of installers for MS windows already, including freeware, Open Source and commercial. To me this suggest that MS is only doing another PR stunt. They are not taking OSS seriously, and have this little project there to say, "look, we do open source as well". The "leaders" at MS have _always_ stressed their position on "IP", and MS will not give anything away or share it with _any_ community.

        If MS wanted to show people that they were serious about OSS and wanted to actually try to build a community of loyal developers like with OSS, they would release something more significant, yet not one of their big "IP" projects. For example, why not release windows explorer (not IE)? That code _needs_ some serious fixing. When you are trying to user explorer.exe as a file manager, it constantly locks files and directories and makes it a pain to use. The only "fix" is to either log out or run taskmgr and kill and restart explorer.exe. The problem with that is that your shell is restarted and you often lose many of your notification area icons.

        MS has the potential to drastically change their public appearance and even possibly build a community of loyal developers working in their own free time similar to OSS. However, to achieve that, MS will need to give something as a good faith token gesture to the community and not keep their hands on it. This is where MS will fail based on what they have shown us in the past. MS has tons of smaller applications that they do not sell that they could release and have people work on these applications in an _open_ fashion without MS trying to keep their controlling hand on the project. How about notepad, wordpad, HyperTerminal, ms paint, cmd.exe, backup, sound recorder, volume control, windows movie maker, calculator, freecell, Hearts, Pinball, Solitaire, etc. All of these apps MS could release and allow the community to develop further. MS would still include them into their release by grabbing the latest stable build and putting that through testing.

      • Re:Prediction (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Jonah Hex ( 651948 ) <hexdotms @ g m a i l .com> on Monday April 05, 2004 @01:24PM (#8771489) Homepage Journal
        Has anyone here who's posting actually downloaded it and tried it yet?
        Kinda hard to do so... From the SourceForge page linked above:
        This Project Has Not Released Any Files
        Isn't the number one rule of releasing an OS project to actually have something to release first? Sure MS prob hasn't "gotten around to it" but it seems to me they're getting "OSS cred" without even making a release OSS yet...
        Jonah Hex
        • Re:Prediction (Score:3, Informative)

          by bhtooefr ( 649901 )
          Actually, read the news release that it's the first MS OSS project. There's a comment saying that they had to pull the compiled version because he forgot to upload the source to CVS.
  • Embrace and... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by glamslam ( 535995 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:03AM (#8769226)
    They can embrace it all that they want AND extend it... developers and end-users will win in the end when it comes to open source.
    • by gakguk ( 530867 ) <gokhan@altinorERDOSen.com minus math_god> on Monday April 05, 2004 @11:05AM (#8770009) Homepage
      He's the one behind the SourceForge release. Here's the part on the idea behind, from his release comments [asp.net]

      Now, let's talk about why WiX was released as Open Source. First, working on WiX has never been a part of my job description or review goals. I work on the project in my free time. Second, WiX is a very developer oriented project and thus providing source code access increases the pool of available developers. Today, there are five core developers (Robert, K, Reid, and Derek, thank you!) regularly working on WiX in their free time with another ten submitting fixes occasionally. Finally, many parts of the Open Source development process appeal to me. Back in 1999 and 2000, I did not feel that many people inside Microsoft understood what the Open Source community was really about and I wanted to improve that understanding by providing an example.

      After four and a half years of part-time development, the WiX design (and most of the code) matured to a point where I was comfortable trying to release it externally. So, last October I started looking for a means to release not only the tools but the source code as well. I thought GotDotNet was the place. However, at that time, none of the existing Shared Source licenses were flexible enough to accept contributions from the community. Then, in February, I was introduced to Stephen Walli who was also working to improve Microsoft's relationship with the Open Source community. Fortunately, Stephen was much farther along than I and had the step-by-step plan how to release an Open Source project from Microsoft using an approved OSS license.

      Today, via WiX on SourceForge, you get to see the results of many people's efforts to improve Microsoft from the inside out. I'm not exactly sure what is going to happen next but I'm sure there are quite a few people who are interested to see where this leads. Personally, all I hope is that if you find the WiX toolset useful then you'll join the community and help us improve the toolset.
  • This license reads more like the BSD license, with all its "the code is out for everybody to grab and hide" kefussles.

    Open Code + bug fixes + hidden extensions == incompatible again.
    • by cipher chort ( 721069 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:19AM (#8769451) Homepage
      Yeah, but who says it *has* to be GPL to be acceptable? The FSF lists the BSD license as being an "Open Source" license. If all of Microsoft's stuff was released under BSD license (which of course it won't be, because this is just a desparate ploy to deflect some of the criticism against MS), would you people still whine about how closed it is? Oh that's right, you'd all chant "Windows is Dying".

      Everyday I find myself more in agreement with that sig that says "Linux is good, but I can't stand the users". Or to put a common bumpersticker saying in context "Linus, save me from your followers".
    • by k98sven ( 324383 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:36AM (#8769666) Journal
      This license reads more like the BSD license, with all its "the code is out for everybody to grab and hide" kefussles.

      Not true.
      From the CPL version 1.0:

      A Contributor may choose to distribute the Program in object code form under its own license agreement, provided that:

      [..]
      iv) states that source code for the Program is available from such Contributor, and informs licensees how to obtain it in a reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used for software exchange.


      The CPL is a 'copyleft' license, just like the GPL. The main point of difference is that the CPL has a software-patent protection clause, which the GPL does not.

      (However, Eben Moglen has indicated that this may be included in the next version of the GPL, which would make it compatible)
  • How about neither? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:03AM (#8769232)
    Microsoft is just being a normal monopolistic corporation. It's throwing bones to the dog here.

    This means nothing. MS is simply trying to look good, and it's well worth it to improve their image, which I fear has suffered of late... (funding SCO).

    • by DickBreath ( 207180 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:25AM (#8769535) Homepage
      They are providing an open source mechanism to assist developers in more easily deploying software that gets end users locked into Windows.
    • by DickBreath ( 207180 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:27AM (#8769560) Homepage
      By releasing something under a true open source license, and calling it "Shared Source", they help to confuse the uninformed about exactly what Shared Source really is.
    • by Prince Vegeta SSJ4 ( 718736 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:35AM (#8769652)
      Bill Gates (Turning to Face Linus): Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design.

      Bill Gates: Your friends up there at the sanctuary website [indicates sourceforge] are falling into a trap.

      Linus reacts. Bill Gates notes it

      Bill Gates: As is your open source community

      Bill Gates: It was I who allowed the Open Source Community to know the source code of Windows Installer XML (WiX) developer tool. It is quite safe from your pitiful little band. An entire legion of my best Coders awaits them.

      Linus' look darts from Bill Gates to Steve Ballmer and, finally, to the Tablet PC in Bill Gates hand.

      Bill Gates: Oh...I'm afraid the Trusted Computing Architecture will be quite operational when your friends arrive.

      To be continued

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:03AM (#8769233)
    They just want all the programmers that use source forge to be able to use their installer and write windows programs. It's a smart move, and it's only an *installer*, no big deal...
    • by zegebbers ( 751020 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:10AM (#8769320) Homepage
      They just want all the programmers that use source forge to be able to use their installer and write windows programs. It's a smart move, and it's only an *installer*, no big deal...

      If it's no big deal, then why is it nearly impossible for me to get a standard way for installing softwre on linux? I understand that most distros come with a packaging manager, but if I want to write a program, allow downloads from my site, then (to the best of my knowledge) there's no way for it to easily be installed and have menu shortcuts etc set up....

      • by 74nova ( 737399 ) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (llebnnoj)> on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:21AM (#8769475) Homepage Journal
        no doubt. look at the downloads page for opera on linux. [opera.com] look at how many different packaging types they have to produce to make it easy to get on your linux machine. thats 12 download options for the "same" OS (note quotation marks mods/flamers, i realize they are not all the same). seems like there coudl be something, or someway to standardize...
      • by Coryoth ( 254751 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:43AM (#8769759) Homepage Journal
        If it's no big deal, then why is it nearly impossible for me to get a standard way for installing softwre on linux? I understand that most distros come with a packaging manager, but if I want to write a program, allow downloads from my site, then (to the best of my knowledge) there's no way for it to easily be installed and have menu shortcuts etc set up....

        Follow this [freedesktop.org] and your menu entries will show up for KDE and GNOME. Users of other DEs normally have enough nouse to add menu entries themselves (or their DEs can load GNOME/KDE menus).

        As for installers, at wort you can just statically compile into an rpm - no dependency issues then. As long as you provide a source tar ball as well then most everyone will be happy (and if your program is any good, it'll get included in the package repositories of the various distributions).

        If that doesn't appeal, you could always support autopackage [autopackage.org].

        Jedidiah.
      • by FooBarWidget ( 556006 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:44AM (#8769771)
        Maybe you're looking for Autopackage. [autopackage.org]
        Autopackage is a cross-distribution installation system for Linux, mostly designed for desktop apps. With Autopackage it's very easy to create packages that automatically integrate with GNOME and KDE and support non-root installs.

        We're close to 1.0. We've recently changed our plans a little to reach 1.0 earlier so we can have more users ==> which means more developers.
        Autopackage 1.0 will not be perfect, it will just be a "it works, and works well". The really cool features such as RPM/APT/YUM integration is scheduled for post-1.0.

        Please lend your hand and support us. The more users/packagers we have, the better, because that means we'll probably also get more developers who can help us with the post-1.0 cool features and make Linux installation even better.
    • by Ralph Wiggam ( 22354 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:42AM (#8769744) Homepage
      People (especially around here) only think of MS as this evil empire that does nothing except try to illegally crush thier competitors and rob old ladies. They certainly do plenty of those things, but they're still a smart, large software company. They got where they are by encouraging people to write software for Windows and then taking care of the people that do.

      -B
  • This is /.! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by FortKnox ( 169099 )
    Is this another ploy from Microsoft to not look like the bad guy, or do you think they are embracing on the Open Source movement?

    Oh, you'll have some conspiracy theorist claiming its a money-saving move to make sf pay for all the bandwidth of d/ling the source! So, not only are they the bad guy in this scenario, but they also are using open source to bring open source down!

    If MS open sourced all their apps, there would STILL be a large "we hate MS" movement on slashdot... mostly from people that haven
    • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:10AM (#8769322)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Question (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bonch ( 38532 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:19AM (#8769449)
        My dislike of Microsoft comes from their business practices. Crushing Netscape, RealPlayer, Wordperfect, Eudora, etc etc by levering their monopoly position on the desktop has nothing to do with closed or open source software. Watch their conduct in the coming search engine wars -- they will tie everything in with the OS in the name of "innovation" and "helping the end user" but in the end it's really just a ploy to exterminate Google and Yahoo. Just as IE was a ploy to exterminate Netscape.

        What's the difference between IE's integration into the Windows shell and Konquerer's integration into KDE?

        I don't see the big fucking deal. I run Windows XP at work yet--gasp--choose to run Firefox. Believe it or not, Microsoft isn't holding a gun to my head...
        • Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)

          by FooBarWidget ( 556006 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:35AM (#8769654)
          There are many differences:

          1. Konqueror can be removed without taking the entire system down. On Windows, you can remove the shortcuts for IE at most.

          2. KDE and Linux don't have a monopoly. When you're a monopoly, the rules change (why do people *still* don't know this after all these years?). With great power comes great responsibility - Microsoft has great power, KDE does not.

          "I don't see the big fucking deal. I run Windows XP at work yet--gasp--choose to run Firefox. Believe it or not, Microsoft isn't holding a gun to my head..."

          Yeah that's great. How much % market share does Firefox have again?
          And that's the problem. As competitor, even though you can exist, the chance that you get a big enough market share is almost zero.

          For example, you're the developer of BonchBrowser. BonOffice is smaller (only 500 KB!), faster (renders 10 MB HTML in 2 seconds), uses much less memory than IE (1 MB only), is 100% standards compliant, has popup and ad blocking, is secure, etc. etc.
          Can you get more than, say, 40% of the browser market share? I don't think so! IE is already installed on all Windows computers, people will not switch to BonchBrowser even if it really is better than IE. As competitor you simply has no chance to beat them no matter what you do, simply because MS has a monopoly.
          • Re:Question (Score:3, Informative)

            by AstroDrabb ( 534369 ) *

            For example, you're the developer of BonchBrowser. BonOffice is smaller (only 500 KB!), faster (renders 10 MB HTML in 2 seconds), uses much less memory than IE (1 MB only), is 100% standards compliant, has popup and ad blocking, is secure, etc. etc.
            Can you get more than, say, 40% of the browser market share? I don't think so! IE is already installed on all Windows computers, people will not switch to BonchBrowser even if it really is better than IE. As competitor you simply has no chance to beat them no ma

        • Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)

          by div_2n ( 525075 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:43AM (#8769755)
          Easy:

          1) The KDE team Produces a desktop environment overlayed on an existing operating system, not an entire turnkey solution as MS does.

          2) You can pick and choose which components of KDE you want to use. It is my understanding that you don't even have to have Konquerer installed to use KDE, but I could be wrong.

          3) KDE is free and open. You are in charge when using KDE and not the other way around.

          4) The KDE team has never (to my knowledge) been responsible for signing OEM deals where the vendor is restricted from installing other software from competitors as MS has been.

          Next!
  • questionable... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dummkopf ( 538393 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:04AM (#8769244) Homepage
    ... there *must* be something in for Microsoft for them to release the source of something. Maybe it is just a sad attempt to show that their code is not as nasty as what other programmers saw a few months back when the Windows code was leaked. Or maybe there is some ploy in here in order to make $$$ but it is so sneaky that we have not figured it out yet. As far as I am concerned, this seems to be some strategic move...
    • Re:questionable... (Score:4, Informative)

      by TechnoLust ( 528463 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `tsulonhcet.iak'> on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:10AM (#8769316) Homepage Journal
      Oh, no! They're on to us! I confess. I work for Microsoft and this is all a ploy. The code is actually a very subtle virus that will send a message to us everytime someone installs a piece of open source software with this shared code. This will then open a back door and we will lauch DDOS attacks against SCO from this zombie box. It was supposed to make it look like Linux is insecure and everyone would buy our products. Too bad you figured us out.
    • Re:questionable... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DreadSpoon ( 653424 )
      Or maybe they just want more applications to be installed using the quite functional and usable Windows Installer? A lot of Open Source apps exist for Windows these days, most using either Winzip installer, WISE, or some low-quality hack of an installer. Getting these apps to use the Windows Installer is a good thing both for Microsoft (more market share of installer, as it were) plus for users, who will now have high quality installers for more applications.
  • by bicho ( 144895 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:05AM (#8769249)
    ...join them... ... and attack later from the inside...(maybe?)
  • by maharg ( 182366 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:05AM (#8769253) Homepage Journal
    hardly hurts M$ now, does it !
  • by gaj ( 1933 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:07AM (#8769279) Homepage Journal
    Cool. This looks like code I may find usefull. And it's Free. Works for me.

    OTOH, I expect several hundred postings, all the rough equivalent of:

    "Hey! They can't
    do that! We're the cool Free Software kids, and they're the Propriatary Software lamers. No fair!"
  • by glenrm ( 640773 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:07AM (#8769280) Homepage Journal
    This seems like a bigger deal for SourceForge than Microsoft, does the Forge become a default meeting place for all developers?
  • Ploy? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chromodromic ( 668389 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:08AM (#8769287)
    Of course it's a ploy. But if the Big Bad Wolf, needing to make friends with a few of the forest's other creatures, offers to make you a nice lunch and can prove -- via a reasonable license -- that it's not poisoned, well, then eat up and say thank you.

    Nothing's changed. But the software is useful and it's nice to know that public opinion can hold some sway over Microsoft, however tenuous ...
  • eyarg (Score:5, Interesting)

    by happyfrogcow ( 708359 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:08AM (#8769293)
    Is this another ploy from Microsoft to not look like the bad guy, or do you think they are embracing on the Open Source movement?"

    Yeah, that's why people diferentiate between "Open Source" and "Free Software". Open Source implies, sometimes falsely, what Free Software explicitly states. One project of SF does not make you a proponent of Free Software. Let's wait and see how MS follows this up.

    However, it is interesting if you want to see what MS code looks like. I wonder if they spent weeks cleaning it and going to code reviews to make sure it is a good example of MS software.
  • Microsoft making a Sourceforge project account??

    That makes the new calculation to Armageddon, what, next week?
  • by tjstork ( 137384 ) <todd@bandrowsky.gmail@com> on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:09AM (#8769301) Homepage Journal

    Back in the day, way long ago, AT&T was a greedy monopoly. Then, realizing it was a monopoly, AT&T invented lasers, transistors, Unix and a bunch of other stuff. But, they were a greedy monopoly first. Then, they became a benevolent monopoly, which we broke up so that we could have lots more phone ads, calling plans, and more expensive phones than ever.

    If MS does morph into a benevolent monopoly like AT&T of old, should we break it up just for market's sake?
    • by Bazzargh ( 39195 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:21AM (#8769474)
      If MS does morph into a benevolent monopoly like AT&T of old, should we break it up just for market's sake?

      Nah, just for the sake of nostalgia.
    • Comparing the two companies is like comparing apples to... rocks. AT&T had the monopoly of providing a service into people's homes and businesses. They owned the wire that got themselves into the buildings and it was impossible for a competitor to build a competing network. Also, owning both ends of every communications channel meant it was easy to artificially keep prices high for both sides and not allow connections to any other provider.

      Microsoft also has a monopoly, only on the desktop. But the
    • THe difference was that AT&T was a government sanction monopoly which ran under restrictions. Such as 'thow shalt not compete with the computer industry'. So they ended up creating some neat stuff (C, UNIX etc.) which was given away since they had a guaranteed cash flow and wanted to keep the regulators off their tail.

      MS is a natural monopoly, which is not illegal. What is illegal is how they use their monopoly (several courts have already found against them, the fact that they have used their monoply
  • ... but that doesn't make *him* any better, right?

    What is to be understood here is that MS has an interest in there being a lot of free/cheap easy-to-install programs for their OS. Now that they've released WiX, less companies will be willing to pay for, say, InstallShield(/whatever) and as there a more programs that will use WiX, the feel of the OS-operation will be that it is more harmonious. How many times have you installed programs that have crap-ass installers an didn't have proper uninstall features
  • by Mjlner ( 609829 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:09AM (#8769307) Journal
    Maybe they're not even trying to look altruistic. The license is more of a BSD-one, and Microsoft
    has always made a point of not liking "the viral nature" of GPL.

    So, this could actually be an honest experiment to see what they can gain from the OS-development
    model, and not even pretending to be anything else than what they are, a company trying to make
    profit.

  • by nberardi ( 199555 ) * on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:10AM (#8769311) Homepage
    A couple of background details on WiX:
    • The Windows Installer XML [sourceforge.net](WiX - pronounced "wicks") is a toolset for advanced Windows developers that builds Windows installation packages from XML source code. Overall, WiX [sourceforge.net] can improve the process of how software developers release software.
    • WiX [sourceforge.net] has grown organically and spread rapidly inside Microsoft for our own product builds (e.g. SQL, BizTalk, Exchange, Office, Virtual Server, many MSN properties) and there is a healthy internal community already contributing to the toolset.
    • Many Microsoft product development teams use WiX [sourceforge.net] to deliver their installation packages. Utilizing the 1.0 Common Language Runtime, WiX [sourceforge.net] builds with Visual Studio.Net 2003 on Windows 2000, Windows XP, and will be of use with future Windows offerings.
    • For more information please see http://sourceforge.net/projects/wix/ [sourceforge.net]
  • More details (Score:4, Informative)

    by Zarhan ( 415465 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:11AM (#8769329)
    Much more detailed information available at MSDN [msdn.com].
  • by dorward ( 129628 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:11AM (#8769331) Homepage Journal
    It is nice to see Microsoft open sourcing code under what appears to be a reasonable license.

    However, could there be a piece of software less useful to the Linux/UNIX/etc community? We already have a bunch of mostly incompatable ways to install software.

    Still, it could prove useful for open source developers targeting the Windows platform, and may provide a boost for cross platform tools such as GAIM.

    Some open source projects (e.g. Apache httpd) already distribute their software in MSI form. I wonder how they create their packages - this could be a way for their developers to use less closed source software.

    I'm still tending towards the "another ploy from Microsoft to not look like the bad guy", but I am a cynic.
  • by WebTurtle ( 109015 ) <derek,dimatteo&gmail,com> on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:12AM (#8769351) Homepage

    1) Microsoft wins by getting people to develop their software for free.

    2) Microsoft wins by getting "good press" for having released something in their Shared Source Initiative program.

    3) Microsoft wins more "good press" by placing the released application on SourceForge (the well-known bastion of Open Source developers).

    4) Microsoft wins because it persuades people it is playing nice, people let their guard down, and then Microsoft slowly spreads their foul seed....

    Can an 800 pound gorilla known for deceit and the ability to subtly infiltrate and influence almost any industry it touches really be trusted?
  • by greygent ( 523713 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:12AM (#8769353) Homepage
    I'm no Microsoft basher, but I'd love to hear their explanation for such a mood change after attacking open source, and specifically, the GPL so harshly.

    They should at least have the decency to explain why they think their old views are wrong.
    • Well, it's not released under the GPL, for one thing...

      Microsoft as a company hasn't straight-up said OSS is the work of the devil. They're exploring an avenue of socialist software development. I think everyone here should respect this initial dabbling, and promote it. If they continue this trend, it's good for everyone.

  • by thesaur ( 681425 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:13AM (#8769358)
    It seems that Microsoft finally is coming to realize the power of open source software. After all, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

    Microsoft knows that their power lies in their broad userbase. By holding out this "olive branch" to the OSS community, they are preventing an embarrassement, especially in circles where OSS is finding more and more acceptance. For example, the city of Munich switched to Linux over Windows. Now OSS advocates have one less argument in their toolkit.

    From now on, no one can accuse Microsoft of being completely closed source. Not that it really matters in the big picture, because their major applications are closed source, anyway.

    There's always the possibility that this will get yanked like nullsoft's WASTE (secure file sharing). In this case, I suppose it is very unlikely.

    All things considered, we should welcome Microsoft's foray into OSS cautiously, who knows what their motivation is...
  • Rational behaviour (Score:5, Interesting)

    by say ( 191220 ) <.sigve. .at. .wolfraidah.no.> on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:16AM (#8769401) Homepage
    Although my heart says "they are trying to trick us", my head tells me this is only rational behaviour from Microsoft.

    Microsoft looks at FOSS as a bad corporate strategy that will never earn them any money, and that will never make the best software in the world. But they aren't stupid: They do observe that quite a lot of good software is being made under open licenses.

    Through making their installer a part of that, they make it easier to deploy good, free software on Windows. This is, in other words, a win-win-situation for Microsoft AND its customers. And even FOSS developers. And other developers (except those making propietary installers, of course).

  • More Information (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rufus211 ( 221883 ) <`gro.hsikcah' `ta' `todhsals-sufur'> on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:18AM (#8769425) Homepage
    The developer has more information as to what WiX is in his blog:

    http://blogs.msdn.com/robmen [msdn.com]
  • Not Funny (Score:5, Funny)

    by Peter Lustig ( 659769 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:22AM (#8769480)
    They should change that name especially for Germany. Because in German "Wix" sounds like "Wichsen" which means to jerk off. So noone will take this serious.
  • Maybe? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lukewarmfusion ( 726141 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:23AM (#8769502) Homepage Journal
    You know how everyone says the RIAA could have benefited so much more if they would have embraced file-sharing? Maybe this is Microsoft comparing their situations. Keep their business model, but remain flexible enough to hold up to the changes they need to make.

    I can see a lot of benefits to Microsoft doing something like this.. maybe they're just seeing them too.
  • by PetoskeyGuy ( 648788 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:26AM (#8769538)
    This looks interesting, although I haven't had a chance to try it out yet. I wouldn't dwell on the open source aspects of it too much. It's a tool, not a product. Extending it will just give them more reach into other systems, or like Mono let others do the porting work for them.

    Microsoft has a released other tools for free to developers such as the Embedded Visual Tools for handhelds and phones. It was part of the larger effort to get a large software base for their CE platform when palm was the leader. It's so bug ridden they should release that to open source.

    Then there was that browser they gave away for free, and Services For UNIX, event Dakimakura pillows in Japan.

    Still it makes me wonder how for off this prediction is [informationweek.com] that says Microsoft will produce software for Linux in 2004. It's always fun to go back and see what people thought was going to happen.
  • by Phil John ( 576633 ) <phil@NOSpAM.webstarsltd.com> on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:31AM (#8769599)
    If you could take the windows installer files I (assume) this creates and actually know the format and how it works, you could port the shells of it over to linux and use it to intercept installations, wine's windows installer then taking the tasks of putting short cuts in the right place etc?
  • For $DEITY's sake (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheCabal ( 215908 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:36AM (#8769665) Journal
    Is this another ploy from Microsoft to not look like the bad guy, or do you think they are embracing on the Open Source movement?

    Can't you guys just once take something at face value instead of trying to find ulterior motives for everything? If it's damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't then why even bother?
  • Not impressed... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LibrePensador ( 668335 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:38AM (#8769682) Journal
    Words that come to mind:

    *Trojan Horse - in its original sense

    *Strategic Move

    *Distraction Tactics to assuage the roars that are sure to ensue after the release of the first Phoenix TCPA bioses.

    *Some Microsoft developers appreciate the power of collaboration?

    *Vitiate what people understand free software to be by mudding the waters even more. At the next Linux conference, Microsoft will proudly display that they too are contributing to open source. I can just see it now: "We use open source where it makes sense and make use of proprietary best practices to lead the world to a new paradigm of openness, yet realiably supported for the one and only company that you should trust". In other words, newspeak.

    I wish to be proven wrong. If a Microsoft employee reads this. Prove us wrong and we'll welcome you. Compete on the strengths of office by providing a documented, free and open XML schema for Office. Make it easy to import openoffice documents by MS Office. While you are a it, open Source CIFS under an OSI approved license.

    Then, I might begin believing.
  • by gpuk ( 712102 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @10:57AM (#8769917)
    All this conspiracy, "black-helicopter" rubbish being posted suggests no one has even read the lead developers blog. I quote:

    "Now, let's talk about why WiX was released as Open Source. First, working on WiX has never been a part of my job description or review goals. I work on the project in my free time. Second, WiX is a very developer oriented project and thus providing source code access increases the pool of available developers. Today, there are five core developers (Robert, K, Reid, and Derek, thank you!) regularly working on WiX in their free time with another ten submitting fixes occasionally. Finally, many parts of the Open Source development process appeal to me. Back in 1999 and 2000, I did not feel that many people inside Microsoft understood what the Open Source community was really about and I wanted to improve that understanding by providing an example.

    After four and a half years of part-time development, the WiX design (and most of the code) matured to a point where I was comfortable trying to release it externally. So, last October I started looking for a means to release not only the tools but the source code as well. I thought GotDotNet was the place. However, at that time, none of the existing Shared Source licenses were flexible enough to accept contributions from the community. Then, in February, I was introduced to Stephen Walli who was also working to improve Microsoft's relationship with the Open Source community. Fortunately, Stephen was much farther along than I and had the step-by-step plan how to release an Open Source project from Microsoft using an approved OSS license.

    Today, via WiX on SourceForge, you get to see the results of many people's efforts to improve Microsoft from the inside out. I'm not exactly sure what is going to happen next but I'm sure there are quite a few people who are interested to see where this leads. Personally, all I hope is that if you find the WiX toolset useful then you'll join the community and help us improve the toolset."

  • Interesting quote (Score:3, Informative)

    by Wolface ( 740944 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @11:18AM (#8770134)
    I found interesting this explanation from the blog
    • http://blogs.msdn.com/robmen
    First, working on WiX has never been a part of my job description or review goals. I work on the project in my free time. Second, WiX is a very developer oriented project and thus providing source code access increases the pool of available developers. Today, there are five core developers (Robert, K, Reid, and Derek, thank you!) regularly working on WiX in their free time with another ten submitting fixes occasionally. Finally, many parts of the Open Source development process appeal to me. Back in 1999 and 2000, I did not feel that many people inside Microsoft understood what the Open Source community was really about and I wanted to improve that understanding by providing an example. Today, via WiX on SourceForge, you get to see the results of many people's efforts to improve Microsoft from the inside out. I'm not exactly sure what is going to happen next but I'm sure there are quite a few people who are interested to see where this leads. Personally, all I hope is that if you find the WiX toolset useful then you'll join the community and help us improve the toolset.
  • by TiddlyPom ( 700237 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @11:21AM (#8770152)
    I used to be an absolutely staunch Microsoft and Windows supporter in the days when they promoted their O/S as an enabling platform that allowed many competing products to co-exist and compete for a user share e.g.

    MS Office vs Corel Office vs Lotus Office etc
    Internet Explorer vs Netscape vs Mosiac (oops IE again!)

    and many other competing products.

    Were the other applications much worse than MS's software - yes in some cases - but in other cases they were better. The reason that the other suites vanished is because MS used their position as vendors of the operating system to an unfair advantage to bundle MS applications at rates that were unsustainable for 3rd party vendors then having wiped out most of the competition they hiked the prices up again!

    Look at a typical PC today. Apart from (say) a virus scanner and DVD/CD burning software the vast majority of the software will be MS owned and controlled. So having created a true monopoly, MS hikes up prices, adds 'features' like DRM that many users do not want then and add hardware keyed software protection measures to protect this monopoly.

    Cobblers to this - I want a choice!

    Don't get me wrong, I have spent most of my current IT career using MS O/S's but I am getting to the stage where I cannot justify using Windows for my own use and promoting this monopoly. My home PCs all have Windows/Linux dual boot on them and I will be moving over to pure Linux on 2/3 of the machines in the near future.

    The only reason for one PC remaining on Windows is that my 4 year old daughter's favourite software (PC play and Learn - which is Macromedia Authorware based) will not run on Linux except by using a Crossover Office plugin and even then not in an acceptable fashion. Please, please Macromedia port the authorware runtime to Linux!

    Bottom line - MS *IS* holding a gun to your head. What they want you to believe is "Pay our inflated monopolistic prices or stop using your PC!" (and most of Joe Public out there genuinely believe that).

    I can understand MS copy protecting their applications such as Office, Developer Studio etc since there are suitable alternatives but not the operating system (if you want to use Windows software). This is especially nauseating when they drop support for earlier O/S versions after a fairly short while...

    Is their open source offering a good thing? Absolutely.

    Has the Leopard changed its spots? Of course not.

    This hasn't cost MS a bean in real terms and has gained them some qudos by contributing to an open source project. They are, of course, the same greedy monopolistic empire that they always have been (IMHO of course!)

    For goodness sake lets promote Linux usage as much as we can (in schools and workplaces) and perhaps we might be back to the position in which Joe Public has a real choice sometime soon.

    Sorry about the rant but I think it is important.
  • by starX ( 306011 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @12:15PM (#8770718) Homepage
    but if you accept that open source software is changing and going to further change the industry, than Microsoft is going to have to shake hands with it at the very least. Microsoft doesn't exactly strike me as the kind of company to release many projects using an open source liscence, and they certainly won't do anything unless there is profit in it for them, but I can see a future where Microsoft will, at the very least, begin being more accomodating to the open source community.

    Microsoft didn't get to where they are today by being closed to change. Yes, when your on top and control the operating system that most of the world uses, you're perspective tends to be a little bit different than when yuo're the new kid on the block, but it should be becoming appearant to MS that open source is not just a fad, and it should also be apearant to them that it is not something that they can easily make go away, and so they're going to have to develop a buisiness strategy that doestake it into account.

    My take on this is that they're testing the waters. See the general reaction to this, and learn some lessons for the next open source release. It's going to be interesting to see how this develops.
  • by M3wThr33 ( 310489 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @12:57PM (#8771183) Homepage
    You have to understand they are trying to change. This small task is just the beginning of a list of things they'd do before you'd reaccept them. If you can't make a list of things they can do to redeem themselves you hate them too much.
  • by SphericalCrusher ( 739397 ) on Monday April 05, 2004 @07:15PM (#8775123) Journal
    I don't really think that they are trying to be the "good guy" or trying to embrace the open-source movement -- they just know that hardly no one that is a big Linux developer visits the Microsoft website often, and well, has anything to do with it in general. What better way to get the word out fast than to give it to an open-source website? Besides, it'll look good to the EU on how fast it is spreading. I'm sure they would be pretty angry if Microsoft released some source code to the world that never spread.
  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Tuesday April 06, 2004 @01:16AM (#8777238) Homepage
    Have you looked at the thing? It's ugly internally.

    • There are very few comments.
    • Parts are in C++, parts are in C#, and parts are in C, but compiled with the C++ compiler. This may reflect C# being incomplete.
    • Way too much explicit memory management, and little if any use of the C++ standard template library.
    • Error recovery tends to involve "goto".
    • Many canned error messages. Not designed for internationalization.
    • Heavy use of Microsoft-specific typenames, even when unnecessary.

Whatever is not nailed down is mine. Whatever I can pry up is not nailed down. -- Collis P. Huntingdon, railroad tycoon

Working...