Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

How Open Source Has Influenced Windows Server 2008 145

willdavid writes to tell us that Sam Ramji over at Port25 has a nice succinct list of the major open source principles that have been used while developing Windows Server 2008. "Overall, we've learned and continue to learn from open source development principles. These are making their way into the mindset, development practices, and ultimately into the products we bring to market. I've focused here on 'what Microsoft has learned from Open Source' - and ironically, I've agreed to do a panel at OSBC on 3/25 with Jim Zemlin of the Linux Foundation on 'what Open Source can learn from Microsoft'. As all of the different organizations in IT continue to evolve, we'll learn from each others' best practices and make increasingly better software. As in science, this incremental improvement will move all of us forward."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Open Source Has Influenced Windows Server 2008

Comments Filter:
  • by snl2587 ( 1177409 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @02:05PM (#22602550)

    'what Open Source can learn from Microsoft'

    Wait, to release commercial software on par with an untested, alpha Linux flavor and have all their customers switch back to an old version?

    Or maybe how to give consumers what they "want"?

  • by KublaiKhan ( 522918 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @02:08PM (#22602576) Homepage Journal
    Isn't their philosophy to try to take ownership of anything that threatens their business?
  • by jhines ( 82154 ) <> on Friday February 29, 2008 @02:08PM (#22602584) Homepage
    So it is a listing of things NOT to do in an OS.
  • Star Trek analogy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tibor the Hun ( 143056 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @02:17PM (#22602712)
    -Microsoft Cube is hailing us, Captain!
    -Bring it up on the main screen. ...
    We are Microsoft. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be Embraced.
  • by Spinlock_1977 ( 777598 ) <Spinlock_1977&yahoo,com> on Friday February 29, 2008 @02:21PM (#22602770) Journal source development principles?

    What are those, exactly? I'll bet he couldn't name them. I'll bet no one can. It's a bazaar, not a cathedral!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 29, 2008 @02:23PM (#22602788)

    Or maybe how to give consumers what they "want"?
    Indeed. I, for one, am happy that the programs I was running on a Linux 1.0 kernel will run flawlessly on the Linux 2.6 kernel without modification. I'm continually surprised that the rich legacy of Linux apps will continue working unmodified because the developers put so much time and effort to ensure backwards compatibility.
  • Re:Close... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by plague3106 ( 71849 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @02:34PM (#22602900)
    They may have learned a few key points about open source and its effectiveness, but they are leaving out one important part. The OPEN SOURCE.

    Maybe the open source part really isn't the important part of building good open source software? The open part gets you developers that work mostly for free, but MS already has plenty of developers, so opening doesn't benefit them.
  • by HermMunster ( 972336 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @03:04PM (#22603302)
    Open Source has learned how a company can abuse their position, how a company can be a monopoly and make billions and then influence those who are elected into office to protect us. Those billions go a long way to influencing the lawmakers to push aside any attempt to make a better cheaper product.

    It is ludicrous to think that a product that can be made cheaper and better should be put asunder because some powerful monopoly can influence the powers that be. There's no socialistic tendencies there. No communistic tendencies. It is pure capitalism that is being thwarted by Microsoft's practices. Microsoft is a bully, an entity that has one goal and that is to rake in all the money while destroying the competition and they are doing that with their monopoly.

    Your privacy is being violated hundreds of millions of times a day by Microsoft with WGA/WGN and Vista's equivalent. They are able to get away with it because they don't take competition seriously because they don't have to. Would you go out and pay $2000 for a TV from Best Buy and then allow Best Buy to enter your home to verify that you didn't actually receive stolen property? What if they want to do that every week or every month (inspect your home for stolen goods)? What if they say that they'll do this with a hidden camera? Would you permit it? Say you buy frequently form Walmart. Would you permit Walmart to enter your home to inspect your property to prove you didn't steal it from the store? I think not. You wouldn't let your neighbor enter your home upon accusations that you stole something from him. You wouldn't let the police enter your home even if the neighbor filed a complaint.

    What the open source community practices has learned is that Microsoft is the type of entity that uses "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" tactic to kill solid technology and those companies trying to bring them to market. The open source community has learned that Microsoft has threatened every Linux user with 235 alleged patents claiming everyone will have a price to pay to Microsoft, without Microsoft stating specifically what is being violated. This is like an oil company stating that they are going to sue car owners for using gasoline from one of their competitors because their competitor may have allegedly use some of the IP in the gas refining process. Then they threaten the car manufacturers or large companies that use that same gasoline with lawsuits if they don't stop using the competitors gasoline. Then they refuse to say which competitors and they refuse to say which IP has been violated. BTW, that IP was probably stolen by them to begin with.

    We've learned from Microsoft that they will steal IP from small entities and when caught will ignore those companies request to have Microsoft pay up. Z4 Technologies is one of those companies. In this case Microsoft was contacted about their use of the IP developed by this firm for the purpose of over the internet product activation. According to the final ruling which went in favor of Z4 Microsoft knew they were in violation of the IP of Z4 and they continued to use it. During the trial they flooded the court and Z4 with paperwork in hopes of covering it up. The day before the trial began Z4 found the evidence. Z4 won the trial and were granted approximately $100 million. In the ruling the Judge noted numerous acts of misconduct on Microsoft's part and though he could have awarded 3 times the amount he only awarded an additional $25 million in special damages (which is no small amount by any measure). The Judge also noted that Microsoft had participated in these acts because they believe that Z4 was to small and to weak to defend their own IP. Upon appeal Microsoft lost with the Judge also noting the numerous acts of misconduct. With the latest appeal of this Microsoft lost that as well with all awards in tact.

    But what you must understand from this is that Microsoft stole the IP of Z4 which Microsoft used to keep you from stealing their IP. So, they stole the technology
  • by Rary ( 566291 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @03:25PM (#22603614)

    So it is a listing of things NOT to do in an OS.

    If you don't want your OS to become the dominant OS in the PC market, yes.

  • by Mongoose Disciple ( 722373 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @03:31PM (#22603694)
    He/they have learned something from Open Source software and principles.

    It may not have been what you wanted them to learn, though. Frankly, a Microsoft may (metaphorically) buy things at your church bake sale or play basketball with your kids, but they're never going to convert to your religion.
  • How Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jeevesbond ( 1066726 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @03:33PM (#22603714) Homepage

    As in science, this incremental improvement will move all of us forward.

    Well this is interesting, whenever Open Source tries to learn from Microsoft Steve 'rabid-monkey-man' Ballmer starts throwing around software/idea patent threats [].

    If this is an incremental process that can move us all forward, how about Microsoft offer up their patents to the OSDL Patent Commons []? Or just allow Free/Open Source software developers to work without threat of being sued? Oh yeah, they'd rather reserve the right to sue anyone [] who dares to even look at their markets.

  • Re:Close... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by debatem1 ( 1087307 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @03:39PM (#22603848)
    Not all developers can contribute equal value to your project, however. One of the big benefits to open source is that your developer base and your user base coincide a lot more. I wouldn't care to estimate the odds that if one customer wants a feature badly enough to code it, somebody else wants it badly enough to switch to your product for it, but they seem pretty good for something that's free.
  • by comm2k ( 961394 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @03:42PM (#22603908)
    There is no point in criticizing or making fun of this article. Just glance over what they have been doing on port25 and you'll realize that it is filled with crap like this. The SpikeSource article is a real gem:

    One of the key findings was that customers want better open source and Microsoft interoperability, and moreover, they felt this was the issue that the industry has collectively done the least to address. While there has been a lot of unfortunate history that has gotten in the way of this, ultimately customers don't care as much about grudges as they care about everything simply working. Together, SpikeSource and Microsoft's open source lab are doing something about it.
    Excuse me?! Apply Kirk's comment about Klingons.. thats all I can say.
  • by strabes ( 1075839 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @03:54PM (#22604134)
    Windows' market share obviously has nothing to do with its quality.
  • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @04:12PM (#22604384) Journal
    It's a pretty absurd claim, considering guys like Samba and the teams have basically had to reverse engineer everything to get their software to function with Microsoft's protocols and file formats. In fact, even with Microsoft's "co-operation" there's a real tangible fear with many FOSS developers that there's poison pills all over the place.
  • by ProfessionalHostage ( 1110801 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @06:29PM (#22606042)
    - Dumbification of Linux: this is being done by Ubuntu & Kubuntu. And I'm not saying this as a negative thing, entry level Linux should be easy enough for just about anyone.

    - Run a study on user-usability: OSS can hire or contract an established and well-known 'GUI usability' expert/company and let every top OSS products that directly used by the end user to consult to them.

    - Embrace .NET, and create a version that add more functionality, features and 'cool stuff' and make sure anything that written on this version wont compile out-of-the box on VS from Microsoft.

    - Ms. Exchange?

    - More GUI for everything: Stop forcing us to edit some shady configuration file.

    - Out of box Linux distro should be just like Windows': Just some basic programs (notepad, file manager, paint, etc.), but packed with more drivers for lots of stuff.

    We don't need amaroK, MPlayer, tvtime, Gimp, and KDevelop out of the box just like we don't need Winamp, VLC, AFM2000, Photoshop and Delphi on Windows. Thanks to package managers, we can just click here and there, and have them available in a couple of minutes. Not having drivers, now that's a show-stopper.

    - MSDN: Seriously.. we need MSDN-like website for Linux. Running around the web for some API, and stuff in Linux. While on the M$ side we can get everything from Win32, .NET, SQL Server, and some other Microsofties in one place (and maintained properly). ... just my $0.02 ...
  • by dscho ( 819239 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @08:09PM (#22606832)
    It might well be that they learn (slowly, like the slowest of your "friends" in 1st grade), the lessons of open source.

    But then, they will not pay. They _claim_ to care about "intellectual property". But only when a _laywer_ that can _sue_ them, they will _respect_ the lessons to be something of value.

    So I will be glad when they are destroyed, once for all, and everybody else trying to _exploit_ others' work will have something to fear for.

    I mean, Microsoft _invented_ the notion that you should be paid for the _same_ work over and over and over and over again. Only they profited from that. And if you are not a Microsoft shill, you will _have_ to agree that this was unethical.

    Now they "learn" from Open Source? Well, even if they do, do they compensate those who taught them something?

    I guess not. So this planet will be better off if Microsoft dies a _violent_ death, discouraging all those parasites out there, trying to behave like Microsoft, too.
  • by rbanffy ( 584143 ) on Friday February 29, 2008 @08:35PM (#22606962) Homepage Journal
    "If you don't want your OS to become the dominant OS in the PC market, yes."

    Windows' dominance has pretty little to do with Windows per se. Microsoft got lucky (and that "luck" is remarkably disputable as it seems possible they set IBM up) when they launched Windows 3 and abandoned OS/2 development to rename OS/2 3.0 as NT. Windows 3, 3.1, WfW were very popular partly because software makers embraced them. Shortly after that, Microsoft inked highly desirable exclusive deals with OEMs and _that_, not Windows, like the clever deal with IBM about exclusivity and PC-DOS that allowed the clone industry to exist, was key to their position in the market now.

    Very little changed.

    If Linux is ever to get the dominance Microsoft enjoys today, the key is not R&D but the relationship with OEMs and software makers.
  • by bigstrat2003 ( 1058574 ) * on Saturday March 01, 2008 @05:53AM (#22608988)
    So, you're saying that all this time, open source proponents didn't know it was possible to use software they couldn't see the source to? Well, in that case...


    Come on now. The freedom to change the code is in no way a feature of the software. It's entirely separate from the software, and if my software isn't doing what I need it to do, it doesn't matter whether the source is closed or open. That software sucks for my purposes, open or closed.

  • by Antique Geekmeister ( 740220 ) on Saturday March 01, 2008 @07:34AM (#22609208)
    It's worse: they send their kid to soccer practice with your kids, and use it to write playbooks on how to cheat for their kid's team. Look at what they did with SPF, stapling "SenderID" on top of it, breaking SPF, and taking credit for the installed SPF userbase to lend credence to their claims of anyone using SenderID.

    And take a look at Active Directory. It's builot on the open standards of Kerberos, dynamic DNS, DHCP, LDAP, and the like, all woven together and proprietized in ways that not break compatibility. This includes oddnesses done to Kerberos, which MIT sued over and for which the Kerberos patches were very quickly published by MIT to fix the compatibility breakage. It's also taken years for the Samba team to reverse engineer and make a stable Active Directory replacement service, because they're refused to publish what they "extended" onto the open standard applications.

    This behavior is one of the best reasons I can see for using GPL rather than the so-called "more free" licenses, because GPL style licenses actually protect us better from this sort of embrace and extend behavior.

    Yes, they've learned how to steal from the very best and then make it "theirs".

"I have not the slightest confidence in 'spiritual manifestations.'" -- Robert G. Ingersoll