Microsoft going open source??

[Nemesis77]

<< if you think netscape lost market share because of ms's "supposed abuse" of a monopoly >>



MS was found quilty of abusing it's monopoly, so it's not "supposed". Your employer (you do work for MS right?) broke the law! It's as simple as that!

If you want to learn more about your wonderful employer, click here



<< youre a bigger fool then i thought, 90% of the people on this board will tell you netscape sucks donkey balls >>



Actually, Mozilla is pretty good.



<< and if you think that netscape should have been allowed to distruibite itself on windows that is one of the most anti-captalistic, anti-american statements i can think of >>



and having an abusive monopoly is capitalistic and american? Big monopolies were a trademark of communism, yet having MS as a (convicted I might add) abusive monopoly is just a shining beacon of capitalism? Sorry, it doesn't quite work that way. Competition is what drives capitalism. Microsoft is all about killing competition.



<< its like tell people that if they download real player, quicktime has to come with it, or if the download winamp, wmp has to come with it. >>



None of those companies are abusive monopoly, so your comparison is not valid. Sorry, you lose.



<< That is not saying much at all, with 95% of the worlds computers running windows, and Linux having no new innovations of its own, just hacks of developers adding stolen features from other software im not too worried >>



OK, name some MS innovations. Last one that I can remember is Microsoft Bob, and we all know how that ended up. Some of the GUI features in Win XP were stolen from the KDE (www.kde.org) desktop. And MS has been ripping off Apple for as long as I can remember.

Stolen features... That's REALLY funny coming from MS-drone! After all, MS basically wrote the book on how to steal from competition!



<< Show me what features has microsoft stolen from any platform in the last 3 years, if you want to se what the linux community has taken look at KDE or GNOME, exact window designs have been lifted right out of the new interfaces ms has developed >>



Like what features? If you mean the whole idea of Windowed GUI, then I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it's NOT MS innovation. There is only so many ways to design a windowed GUI, so there's bound to be some similarities. And besides, you can completely change the look of both KDE and Gnone in about 5 minutes.

As for MS stealing.... Application grouping was stoled from KDE, the rubber-duck in Win XP was stolen from Mac OS X, Active Directory is a cheap copy on NDS, TCP/IP-stack is from BSD (altrough MS didn't breach the license there)...



<< NO distributed File System >>



you mean something like Coda



<< no built in VPN Server >>



Why does it have to be built in? There are VPN-servers for Linux. And you must remember, "Linux" is only the kernel, Linux-distro has thousands of programs.



<< no built in support for encrypted file systems >>



Yes there is.



<< the software for linux is even worse, mySql doesnt even properly support stored procedures and triggers yet all these junkies wont stop raving about it >>



If you don't like mySQL, then why not Oracle or DB2?



<< and here are some facts from an apache favorible group netcraft: >>



And yet, the fact remains that IIS is a hole-riddled piece of software that has only 25% of the market. Didn't one major consultant-company urge their customers to dump IIS because it's just too insecure and move to Apache?



<< Open Source isnt making the money, the sale of their services to make open source an actual viable solution for a customer is, Why would you need to hire such expensive consultants to make your servers do what they can do out of the box like windows servers. >>



Like I said, for the first time in years, sales of mainframes is increasing, because of Linux. So, thanks to Linux, mainframe-vendors (primarily IBM) are getting more sales. Without Linux that would not happen.

As for Windows-servers.... Don't even get me started. You need a legion of MCSEs (Minesweeper Consultants, Solitaire Experts) to run them. You need several Windows-servers (and several licenses I might add) to do the job of one Unix/Linux-server. Not to mention that Windows is full of security-holes that you need to patch and then patch again. And while their reliablity has got better in recent years, they still can't touch the reliability of Unix/Linux. And not to mention that they only run on x86-hardware.



<< The cost of MS Liscenses if the customer consistently upgrades, in fact they get a huge discount if they do, if the dont want to upgrade within 6-9 months they get charged normal price >>



then why are alot of customers angry because MS keeps on squeezing more money from them? Why one head of IT department went on the record in Finland and said "Microsoft has moved from petty theft to downright robbery!". Whty is it that just about every study regarding MS's licensing-fees show that the fees are going up fast?



<< as for BSA-Audits, all they do is check if you have the correct number of licenses, if your not a thief you have absolutely nothing to worry about. >>



Link 1
Link 2
Link 3



<< Overall, Windows 2000-based server enterprises showed a 46% cost advantage over Unix/RISC environments for a three-year ownership period. Aberdeen research indicates that server acquisition and administration cost are two key areas where lower costs were realized for Windows 2000 compared to Unix/RISC. >>



So, cost of purchasing servers is one key area where W2K beats Unix? So, maybe you can tell me how W2K can be cheaper to obtain than Linux-system that run on identical hardware (and which costs the same) but has no license-costs W2K does? As for administration costs... How can they be higher on Linux, since it just runs for months at end, whereas you must tweak, patch and reboot W2K constantly? Just about every case I have heard in real life that involves heterogenous environments, is one of one Linux-admin taking care of several Linux-servers, whereas you need alot more Windows-admins to take care equivalent number of Windows-servers. And those Linux-servers cause considerably less hassle than those Windows-servers do.

 

[Hyperblaze]

<< Ameesh,

You should probably add "I do not speak for Microsoft" to your signature like pm did (regarding his employment with intel). For those that aren't aware Ameesh works for MS. >>



Ameesh works for MS? THAT explains a lot.

so it's no use really giving any intelligent arugments to him since he's been brainwashed by MS FUD.

 

Ok, I downloaded it and wanted to make some changes to the code, where do I submit my patches? Oh you can't? Well then, Microsoft's version of open-source sucks!

 

[nd]

(apologies to Descartes for being off-topic)

Ameesh,



<< i think its a ridicoulous waste of time that has no practical business application in the long run and i am a software developer >>

Then I personally don't consider you to be a very worthwhile software developer. I am also recognizing the fact that software development itself is independent of 'business application'. Realize that the value of something is not the same as its "business application" value.

Most likely, you don't care what I think, as both of us are probably stubborn, but I'll try anyway -- being at MS can affect your attitude toward this. It can cloud your judgement. For one, from what I hear MS likes to create the atmosphere/idea that their software developers are the best in the world. They like to create a feeling of elitism, and many MS developers probably believe they're the best (note: I do not have first-hand knowledge of this, but this is what I've heard and observed from talking to other MS employees). Second, it's pretty clear that MS is afraid of open source at the high level (that's not to say everyone at MS is scared, but it is VERY clear based on leaked memos and documents that they are severely concerned). Open source software is not an immediate threat to MS, but it is a very viable long-term threat, and there is almost no way for MS to stop it. The higher-ups at MS are definitely aware of this, and I'm willing to bet they are doing everything they can to attack things like the GPL.

Look, I don't know you, so I can't be sure of why you think the way you do (it'd be nice for you to explain some of your reasoning for it being a "ridiculous waste of time"). However, I cannot even comprehend how someone can think it's a waste of time. I use open source software every day. If I have problems with the software I use, I can modify it myself and re-compile it. If I don't like the direction a project is taking, I am free to fork off my own version. Since open source software is generally a collaborated effort by many people, special care is taken for portability and internationalization. When programming, if I have a question about the implementation of a certain library function, I don't have to rely on documentation alone -- I can look in the library source myself and see exactly how it's done. I could go on and on about the advantages of OSS to me personally, but I think I've at least made a point that it's not a "ridicolous [sic] waste of time".

 

<< i think its a ridicoulous waste of time that has no practical business application in the long run and i am a software developer >>



That's funny. I am a software developer and open-source is priceless to me. I just contributed a few thousand lines of code to the Apache Jakarta project, and the tools I helped write will help my business. Only Microsoft brainwashed people would think open-source is bad. This POS I just downloaded from MS is a joke.

 

[nd]

<< Ok, I downloaded it and wanted to make some changes to the code, where do I submit my patches? Oh you can't? Well then, Microsoft's version of open-source sucks! >>

It's obviously a far cry from Open Source or Free Software (as defined by the OSD and FSF), but as Descartes is saying -- it is a step in the right direction.

 

[joohang]

<< What do you think about the code? C# is pretty nice huh i really like it. >>


I'd do C# any day.

Lovely language. I can't believe I actually prefer a C-derived language over VB!

I was at Comdex Vancouver presenting VB.NET. I ended up raving about C#.

 

[joohang]

BTW, I don't think that this is quite "open source".

This sucks. I'm working on 3 history term papers and all these goodies come out.

I want to code!!!

 

Configure finished. Do 'make depend && make' to compile the PAL.


Configure finished. Run './buildall' to build Rotor.

chris@yamato:~/src/ms/sscli$ ./buildall
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/chris/src/ms/sscli/pal/unix/build_tools'
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/chris/src/ms/sscli/pal/unix/build_tools'
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/chris/src/ms/sscli/pal/unix/cruntime'
ld -r lstr.c printf.c silent_printf.c finite.c file.c mbstring.c path.c string.c wchar.c misc.c thread.c -o ../objdf/cruntimeobjs.o
lstr.c: file not recognized: File format not recognized
make[1]: *** [../objdf/cruntimeobjs.o] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/chris/src/ms/sscli/pal/unix/cruntime'
make: *** [librotor_pal] Error 1
chris@yamato:~/src/ms/sscli$


Wow, great Linux compiler support... Here is my answer:


chris@yamato:~/src/ms/sscli$ cd ../..
chris@yamato:~/src$ rm -rf ms
chris@yamato:~/src$

 

[Ameesh]

<< (apologies to Descartes for being off-topic)

Ameesh,



<< i think its a ridicoulous waste of time that has no practical business application in the long run and i am a software developer >>

Then I personally don't consider you to be a very worthwhile software developer. I am also recognizing the fact that software development itself is independent of 'business application'. Realize that the value of something is not the same as its "business application" value.

Most likely, you don't care what I think, as both of us are probably stubborn, but I'll try anyway -- being at MS can affect your attitude toward this. It can cloud your judgement. For one, from what I hear MS likes to create the atmosphere/idea that their software developers are the best in the world. They like to create a feeling of elitism, and many MS developers probably believe they're the best (note: I do not have first-hand knowledge of this, but this is what I've heard and observed from talking to other MS employees). >>




after working there for 8 months now, i am humbled by how smart the people are there, nobody tells each otherr "ohh you are soo smart, soo much better then everyone else", people do their work, and if you're a total n00b (relativily) like me you get to watch and learn and appreciate how much knowledge and experience these people have, they have a high standard for themselves and for the people they work with. IMO anybody who thinks they are the best doesnt realize there is always a bigger fish.

As for you not considering me a worthwhile developer,i dont think i could care less.

and As for my views on Open Source I had them long before i joined Microsoft. If you would like to continue the conversation lets do it via PM.

 

[Descartes]

<< Wow, great Linux compiler support... Here is my answer:

chris@yamato:~/src/ms/sscli$ cd ../..
chris@yamato:~/src$ rm -rf ms
chris@yamato:~/src$ >>



LOL!

Btw, per their documentation, "It will build and run on the Microsoft Windows® XP and the FreeBSD operating systems."

 

<< Btw, per their documentation, "It will build and run on the Microsoft Windows® XP and the FreeBSD operating systems >>


Kinda takes the "open" out of "open source"

 

[singh]

You know, I've got lots of source code sitting on my pc's - for no reason. Whenever I surf to a page that has some "cool" source code, I download it and it just sits there on the hard-drive, taking up space. It's like an addiction

Anyways, it's always nice to see source code.

 

[manly]

Descartes, no offense but it's muddying the waters to refer to the shared-source license as open-source. I've read the license, and I do agree with you that this is a nice, practical step for academic pursuits.

As far as the flamefest, Ameesh is the idiot who started it with unfounded attacks. We all have our biases, but I can't see that he's able to debate these issues with any sense of objectiveness.

Anyway, to get back on-topic, here are a couple interesting thoughts:

FSF counsel says the shared source license doesn't necessarily pollute open-source development

How standard is .Net?

 

<< As far as the flamefest, Ameesh is the idiot who started it with unfounded attacks. We all have our biases, but I can't see that he's able to debate these issues with any sense of objectiveness. >>


Do you expect anything better from a Microsoft employee? Microsoft has made a battleground out of the IT industry. They try to squash anything they can't control. Thus the paranoia over open source. Microsoft must really suck if people are willing to code for free in order to offer an alternative.

edit:

Good read: Gosling laughs at .NET