Microsoft Launches Its Own Open Source Foundation 344
darthcamaro writes "Microsoft already had its own open source (OSI-approved) licenses, its own open source project hosting site and now it's adding its own non-profit open source foundation.
That's right, the company that is still banging the patent drum against open source now has its own 501(c)(6) open source foundation. Officially called the CodePlex Foundation, it's a separate effort from the CodePlex site and is aimed at helping to get more commercial developers involved in open source. Considering how they continue to attack Linux and open source, will anyone take them seriously?"
Why not? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:trap (Score:5, Interesting)
Company wide MS meeting today (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Jealousy (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh you naive windows fool. You think MS products are usually solid and just work??? When has a MS product EVER "just worked"? Name one case....exactly. And saying that Visual Studio is the "Best IDE" is really a large jump, Most widely used, yes, but the best? Hardly. How much does VS Team Suite cost for a site license, and how much is XCode? I'd much rather develop in XCode any day of the week.
Visual Studio is big, bloated, slow, you name it. It's not even smart enough to generate a temporary intellisense file when I open up a code document, instead it'll only work if I have a project file open and the file I'm currently editing is currently in that project. And for some reason people seem to think that if you have VS that you have to use VSS...don't get me started on the pains of using VSS. Yet another example of how a free open source product beats the pants off of a MS product that they charge an arm and a leg for. SVN anybody?
Tools? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure, but my first inclination is that they probably want to encourage the development of Open Source software which is based upon Microsoft Technologies and Tools, so that such projects still require Windows to run, and maybe require Visual Studio, SQL Server, etc to build/implement/install?
I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't be *too* upset about Open Source software which depends upon Microsoft's software to actually work or be built.
It's perfectly utlitarian (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe they're trying to develop a functional open source movement within their development culture? After all, Microsoft sells a platform. The DOS free software movement was a boon to their platform, not a detraction.
We're not looking at a war of ideas, we're looking at a basic platform war. Take Apple, for instance; they sell a high-end commercial platform which heavily leverages the open source ecosystem to augment and flesh-out their platform. Commercial software can be obnoxious, even to a platform vendor: it works against its platform, it puts branding over adherence to user experience, and it makes computer usage frustrating.
If the Windows platform were viewed from the angle of its development community instead of as a vessel for shareware, then they might be able to preserve and further their platform against more open markets (even Apple) coming up against them.
The full F/OSS stack (Linux-FOSS-and above) is a weak platform technically, but a strong idea. Microsoft doesn't have to give up the idea of a professionally maintained platform to leverage an open source third party software ecosystem. Better within their sphere of influence than outside of it. Microsoft is offering an extremely friendly and accessible development environment to its users already; it would be a boon to foster an influx of new platform-defining free applications that add value while not becoming an issue of anti-trust.
Tree Of Knowledge & The Serpent (Score:3, Interesting)
People who develop and know how to use Linux are a different bred. They tend to be self reliant and innovative. Corporations like MS tend to naturally harbour fiefdoms around which barriers are effected that can stifle just the type of innovation Linux is driven by. The adage "faster nervous systems eat slower nervous systems" can apply where institutions allow barriers like glass ceilings to protect managers, the barriers erected can be seen as speed bumps and additional costs that Open Source skirts. Open Source may look haphazard in it's development but then so does evolution and both do OK in the long run.
A lot of Open Source people use Linux and similar OSes because they need to be able to innovate on the spot and not go begging and pleading with Corporate masters for permission to alter a bit of code. Open Source, in my experience, is about innovation and extensibility. MS expected Linux to die of SIDS in its crib. It didn't. I now think MS sees the power and benefits of Open Source and is looking to undermine Linux by offering a similar environment to lure academics and scientists to a similar platform while mining their innovations.
It's kinda like the serpent wants to take a bite out of the apple.
Re:now that IS a TASTY burger (Score:3, Interesting)
Urg, remind me not to read your comments during lunch.
Aside from shamelessly "borrowing" their "innovations" from other companies, and their strong-arm restraint-of-trade distribution tactics, Microsoft have always been the masters of "good enough." For any of the products Microsoft offers (Visual Studio included) there are several commercial competitors that are demonstrably better, but better in ways that customers don't care about or are unwilling to pay more for.
To embrace and extend your hamburger analogy... over the weekend I had a really tasty burger at a restaurant. The waitress asked how I wanted the meat cooked, and it came out exactly right, the bun was toasted, the cheese melted perfectly, and the trimmings fresh and flavorful. And I paid $9.75 for this burger. For $9.75, I can feed my whole family at McDonalds.
Over my years in the industry, I've seen a lot of bloated and unhappy IT departments that lacked energy and flexibility. And I've always advised them that Microsoft is but a part of a healthy IT budget, and to resist the temptation to super-size it.
As for Microsoft's new-found love for open source, I'll treat it as skeptically as I do fast food joints' healthy salads.
Re:Coal.. Kettle? (Score:5, Interesting)
Since you have already been modded troll I shouldn't be feeding you but just this time.
Yes they are obligated to maximize profit for their shareholders, to that goal, it makes no sense to release Windows or MS Office as FOSS, that's not what I want, nor what the majority of FOSS users want either. Except for the minority of loons that actually do want that, the majority of FOSS users and developers understand MS is under no obligation to release Windows or MS Office.
Still we need a Free, Open Source operative system and office suite, a non hostile system that doesn't regards its users as thieves by default, An office suit that doesn't antagonize us, insert malicious secret codes in our documents, and OS that has the features we want, not the features someone else wants us to have and be limited to.
So we make our own. No actions from MS are required. But MS has acted. Against us, every time they poison and flood an open standards forum, every time they bribe a politician who is considering going free, every time they they build intentional incompatibilities in their software, every time they scare clients with bogus patent threats, every time they come up with deceiving names to inject noise in the conversation, like .net, like officeopen instead of openoffice, like shared source instead of opens source, and now this fake open source foundation.
That is what we are complaining about, we don't want them to release their products as FOSS, we just want them to stop playing dirty.
Re:Jealousy (Score:2, Interesting)
What M$ products have you been using? I just made money yesterday removing viruses and fixing numerous problems with a Vista machine that was just working the Microsoft way ;-)
Re:Parental oversight (Score:2, Interesting)
Will anyone take them seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)