Microsoft Blesses LGPL, Joins Apache Foundation 425
Penguinisto writes "According to a somewhat jaw-dropping story in The Register, it appears that Microsoft has performed a trifecta of geek-scaring feats: They have joined the Apache Software Foundation as a Platinum member(at $100K USD a year), submitted LGPL-licensed patches for ADOdb, and have pledged to expand their Open Specifications Promise by adding to the list more than 100 protocols for interoperability between its Windows Server and the Windows client. While I sincerely doubt they'll release Vista under a GPL license anytime soon, this is certainly an unexpected series of moves on their part, and could possibly lead to more OSS (as opposed to 'Shared Source') interactivity between what is arguably Linux' greatest adversary and the Open Source community." (We mentioned the announced support for the Apache Foundation earlier today, as well.)
The Devil must be pissed off (Score:5, Funny)
He doesn't like cold.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Now watch all the banks fail in the US. Stranger every day.
Re:The Devil must be pissed off (Score:4, Insightful)
At this point it would be stranger if more banks didn't fail.
the time of prophecy is at hand! (Score:5, Funny)
Meh. That means nothin'. You don't know of any charismatic, quasi-Messianic personalities rising to power at the moment, do you?
Re:the time of prophecy is at hand! (Score:4, Funny)
Meh. That means nothin'. You don't know of any charismatic, quasi-Messianic personalities rising to power at the moment, do you?
No, only an uncharismatic one. He does think God works through him, though.
Re:The Devil must be pissed off (Score:5, Insightful)
ORLY?
Actually, this isn't really much of a turnaround. Microsoft has long played the "we love open source" (but hate GPL!) stance. The Apache foundation has long since been in the BSD-like license camp (there's very little actual difference between the apache license and BSD). Microsoft really doesn't mind being able to take code. It just doesn't like the idea of having to give back. This may be a way of trying to push the open source community to move toward the BSD-style licensing community... after all, Microsoft uses BSD code. OSX *definetly* uses BSD code. It's possible to totally be proprietary and be cool with BSD.
So what about the LGPL? The LGPL does require that if you make changes to the library, you have to give them back. So if you make changes to glib, you gotta give them back. But you can make any app link to glib, and be completely proprietary, and it doesn't have to be open source. In many ways, this isn't too much of a problem for Microsoft though, since they really aren't in the business of libraries, they're in the business of applications and operating systems. It's is a small advancement though.
It's this kind of situation which is why the FSF, which originally produced the LGPL, wrote an essay saying that it's not always strategically the best choice for free and open source software [gnu.org].
Re:The Devil must be pissed off (Score:5, Informative)
Under BSD, they put out a project, it's open, and you can take bits and build it into something of your own, at which point it is your project, do what you like with it
With GPL the person who wrote the code wants all of their code to remain 'open' wherever it goes, so if you swipe some of their coding and put it in your own module, to make that module proprietary would be locking up their code. Although of course, the original source remains open...
Still, it makes the Extend (or maybe the Extinguish) part of the "3 E's" strategy harder if you have to give back everything you add.
Re:The Devil must be pissed off (Score:5, Insightful)
they really aren't in the business of libraries, they're in the business of applications and operating systems.
They're very much in the business of proprietary libraries. That's how they lock companies into the Windows platform. If they switched to glibc and gtk (or qt) it would be almost trivial for application vendors to recompile for any platform those libraries are available.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They seem pretty much OK with Mono and the Mono team's Silverlight port.
Honestly.... I don't get why Microsoft get treated like crap the instant that they start doing almost exactly what we wanted them to.
I honestly couldn't give a damn if Windows is F/OSS or not. Being able to see the source with a licensed copy would be nice, but not a terribly huge priority for me.
What is a priority, as a Linux user, is that Linux and Windows play nicely with each other. This means that Microsoft has to commit to keepi
Re:The Devil must be pissed off (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, just using Open Standards would be better. And sometimes there are no Open Standards, and then publishing what they are using without restrictive IPR agreements is all we need them to do. They don't have to spend much money on this. We can make things interoperable without any more help than that.
Rather than an ext3 driver on Windows, any network-attached storage device using an open protocol (like Samba) would be a better solution unless you're dirt-poor. Such devices sell below $250 these days.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FUD and lies. The Apache license requires you share the code that is under the Apache license. Any file that contains any apache licensed code must remain apache licensed, along with any changes.
The difference between Apache and GPL is that GPL defines some vague "project" whereas Apache uses the clear term "file" as the domain the viral clause applies to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
IOW, what happens to the code in the file? Can you grab it and do whatever you want with it, as long as you put it in another file?
I suspect this would put the Apache license in a gray area just as much as GPL has regard
Re:The Devil must be pissed off (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft's 2002 Plan to Sue Apache (Score:5, Interesting)
During much of the time I was at HP - hired to be an Open Source leader first and an HP employee second - I knew about this and had to keep it secret. It was a pretty big hardship for me, obviously I felt I was being disloyal to my own community. I'm pasting it in here today so that we don't forget Microsoft's previous intentions toward Apache. - Bruce
From: Campbell, Gary [mailto:gary.campbell@hp.com]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 7:27 PM
To: Stallard, Scott J; CTO Office Directs; Chaffin, Janice; Denzel, Nora; McDowell, Mary; Elias, Howard; Fink, Martin R; Becker, Rick (ISS); Beyers, Joe Cc: Blackmore, Peter; Robison, Shane
Subject: Microsoft Patent Cross License - Open Source Software Impact
Microsoft Patent Cross License - Open Source Software Impact
Today we agreed on a new patent cross license with Microsoft that protects HP in the short term, but it has significant impact on HP's use of Open Source software in the long term. More importantly, we now understand that Microsoft is about to launch legal action against the industry for shipping Open Source software that may force us out of using certain popular Open Source products. We need to create a cross-HP staffed program to understand the implication by product group and to provide the short term and long term steerage. I'll hook up with Martin tomorrow and start planning next steps for a cross-HP planning team.
Background:
HP is we believe, protected by our previous cross license for patents filed by Microsoft up to June of 2001, to ship open source software that violates Microsoft patents that was developed or shipped prior to today. This means that we can freeze on today's open source functionality and we are protected.
The new cross license does not protect us against new Microsoft patents filed after June 2001 against new open source product functionality shipped or created after today. So we have a two year window before HP has exposure on new Microsoft patents against new open source functionality, but we have exposure because of the MAD clause in the GPL if Microsoft attacks another entity with existing patents. See next section.
Open Source Software is described as a license that follows the intent and process of GPL or GPL lite. Additionally several major products are explicitly called out as not protected by the cross license, such as Samba, Wine, KDE, Gnome, Apache, Sendmail, and Linux.
Microsoft's Intentions:
Microsoft could attack Open Source Software for patent infringements against OEMs, Linux distributors, and least likely open source developers. They are specifically upset about Samba, Apache and Sendmail. We believe Samba is first, and they will attempt to prove it isn't covered by prior patent cross as a so called "clone" product carve out in the previous agreement.
OEMs that don't have a cross(like SUN), or OEMs like HP that they force a change in their cross license to exclude open source software are probably the first target. Intel, Red Hat, SuSE, UBL, Oracle are probably in the first wave as well.
IBM we don't know what the status of termination of their Microsoft cross license is. They could be protected by their previous OS/2 deals?
Mutually Assured Destruction Clause:
But it probably doesn't matter, because the GPL license has a mutually assured destruction clause in section 7, if anyone is sued over a patent infringement, no one is licensed under the GPL to ship GPL-ed products. This is probably what Microsoft intends to do.
Basically Microsoft is going to use the legal system to shut down open source software, and for all of its cleverness, the GPL makes it fairly easy unless a white knight steps in.
Best guess on the timing, this fall when they are finished settling with DOJ and the states.
Industry Reaction:
At this point we have no information on who would defend open source with
Re:The Devil must be pissed off (Score:4, Informative)
How do you "extend" the LGPL? It's just like the GPL except that you can link to the code; the open source part is still protected by an invariant license.
True, this is a good way for Microsoft to get cost-free code while being allowed to keep its secret sauce secret. But I don't think the EEE strategy is applicable here.
Keep off the cynicism... (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe they finally got tired of being wrong. This is surprisingly clueful behaviour, and should be encouraged.
Re:Keep off the cynicism... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if they finally turned around and will finally work with everyone else with no dark agenda for the future, old-timers like me (i.e. more than 25-30 years old) will not trust them until they have really proven themselves.
Their most recent move was the OOXML fiasco, so you can understand my skepticism.
Re:Keep off the cynicism... (Score:5, Funny)
Since when is 25 old? I just turned 25 and have yet to tell kids to "Get off my lawn", "Turn down that music" or say "Back in my day..."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I said "more than", which means you're still young. And we're talking about the computing field here, where a decade is extremely long and a lot can happen.
If you didn't start using computers before MS-DOS, you're still very young.
Re:Keep off the cynicism... (Score:4, Funny)
Ah, you young whippersnappers, back in my day 25 was plenty old! We sang the hacker song, enjoyed the writings of ESR and we all coded in vi...uphill...both ways. Now turn down that music and get off my lawn!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet even in the wake of tampering with ISO, one Microsoft employee from the Office group recently had a quote saying that Microsoft knew they have lost the document standard war, and that was why they were adding support for ODF in SP2.
Re:Keep off the cynicism... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Keep off the cynicism... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft making their protocols available isn't the same as "work with everyone else". Microsoft's protocols and file formats all:
a) tend to be very complex and/or virtually impossible to fully implement. See OOXML.
b) change with every version of Windows, and then sometimes in between. Somehow, documentation lags implementation by quite some time. Years sometimes. See Europe's attempt at extracting up-to-date documentation from them.
While releasing documentation closes the gap somewhat, it still leaves the game as "Works best when you only use Windows machines". Which is exactly what is best for Microsoft.
While this can be viewed as a positive step, it very much is a "you can play with my ball, but under my conditions, and whenever I get a new one, you can't play with it until I feel like it", and not "let's all play together with all the toys so everyone can have more fun".
Perhaps they ARE starting to see the light. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if they finally turned around and will finally work with everyone else with no dark agenda for the future, old-timers like me (i.e. more than 25-30 years old) will not trust them until they have really proven themselves.
However old timers like me (who programmed computers that used vacuum tubes, not just for the switches, but for the DIODES in the logic), remember when IBM had much the same reputation for closed tech and predatory behavior as Microsoft does now.
After SCO vs. IBM (and for a while before) there's no question where IBM is on the issue now. Wouldn't it be nice if, now that Bill is going away, Microsoft is starting to take a few steps down the same path?
(Then again, perhaps an "itsatrap" tag is appropriate...)
Re:Perhaps they ARE starting to see the light. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually from my point of view IBM is no longer relevant.
The world's largest vendor of Linux, who has their own proprietary version of Unix yet still sells more Linux than they sell of that, one of the most-contributing Linux-supporting companies, the world's largest computer systems consulting company is irrelevant?
I'm impressed.
Last I checked, MS still claims Linux 'IP' (Score:5, Interesting)
More likely this is a move to build OSS and interoperability cred they'll need in court if/when they feel the need to pull a SCO against Linux.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What do you mean? Microsoft already did pull an SCO against Linux. That's what SCO was!
Re:Last I checked, MS still claims Linux 'IP' (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a big company. Takes a long time for everyone to start going in the same direction, especially given Microsoft's entrenched culture and weak leadership.
The way this works is some guy deep in the bowels of some special project says to his boss "look, I know what our policy is but I really need to contribute this patch so that it gets incorporated into future versions. See, this benefits us. Can we make an exception". By some miracle it gets approved, and thus an internal movement is born. It may take years for all the upper management asshats to get their head around it, but this is how it starts. I agree with the GP, surprisingly nothing stinks about this particular movement, albeit deep in the bowels of the company.
Re:Last I checked, MS still claims Linux 'IP' (Score:5, Funny)
nothing stinks about this particular movement, albeit deep in the bowels of the company
Are you saying Microsoft's shit don't stink?
Re:Keep off the cynicism... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they finally got tired of being wrong. This is surprisingly clueful behaviour, and should be encouraged.
Sure. But actions are where it's at. Let's see what Microsoft does with this. They've got a long history (up to recent events) of doing Bad Things.
Maybe this is a turning point. I hope it is. But the cynic in me believes Micrsoft is holding something behind their back.
My guess is this is simply another shot at figuring out Linux's air supply. The old standby of sales didn't work. Copyrights and patents haven't really provided any handholds. Businesses have been resistant - and really, it's just a different angle on sales. So the new tact is to go after the LAMP stack (or the general idea that LAMP represents).
Sure - "developers, developers, developers" still holds true. But now it extends to "applications, applications, applications."
Bill Gates? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe this had to do with Bill Gates' departure from Microsoft?
Just wondering...
Re:Bill Gates? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Keep off the cynicism... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll say it's clueful. The FSF hate the LGPL with a passion. It's their red headed stepchild, and they'd throw it in the wood chipper in a second if they could. By supporting the LGPL, Microsoft are basically trolling Stallman and Moglen.
I'd mod Microsoft -1 troll but +2 funny if I could.
Linus is right (Score:3, Funny)
I am with Linus on this one
Unrelated News (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory Simpsons Quote (Score:5, Funny)
Mr. Burns: Smithers I'm thinking about donating some money to the orphanage... when pigs fly!
(Smithers and Burns both laughing)
(Homer's BBQ pig flies past the window)
Smithers: Will you be making that donation now, sir?
Mr. Burns: Eh, I'd rather not.
Insanity! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Ballmer's Google complex? (Score:5, Interesting)
There's some 'embrace, extend, obsolete' in here somewhere, but I'm beginning to think that this behavior from MS has a lot more to do with Ballmer's seemingly obsessive desire to overtake Google.
In other words, in order to defeat their enemy, they're going to try to BECOME their enemy first. MS is trying to emulate everything Google does, including supporting open source projects.
Embrace.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Extend...
Extinguish.
Sorry Microsoft, but given their past behavior and downright malicious attacks, they're going to have to do far more to gain trust.
What is interesting/scary is that for a relatively small amount ( As seen from the Microsoft Universe ), they could buy off virtually every project, of note, out there. How many projects could be supported on Microsoft's toilet paper budget alone?
Re:Embrace.... (Score:5, Informative)
There's much reason for caution. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Apache and LGPL licenses aren't much of a threat to them. GPL is, because GPL prevents "embrace and enhance", Microsoft's commonly-exercised strategy to take over a market. Microsoft has signed over work to FSF in the past when it was necessary to get changes into GCC for one of their (past) divisions that was making a Unix compatibility layer. I don't think this is the first time they've had to deal with GPL, by far.
So, the big question is, have they turned over a new leaf? I think they're still a super-size multinational for-profit corporation, and the reality is that every one of those will be self-serving first, whether they are Microsoft or someone more usually identified as a "friend" to Open Source. But Microsoft has managed to set themselves ahead of other corporations as a frequent user of dirty-fighting tactics to get its way. I don't expect that corporate culture to go away.
I think we still have some big problems with Microsoft, primarily around software patents. They are still in a position to attack Linux with them, although they would probably do that using a proxy, as they did with SCO. Their increased involvement in Open Source organizations means that they will be taken as a member of the Open Source community when they speak with national legislators. This is terrible for us, because it means they'll be able to short-circuit our work to protect Open Source from software patents by speaking to government as an insider in our communities. They've been lobbying for a software patent treaty between Europe and the U.S. (part of the "anti-piracy treaty" currently under discussion but not available to the public) which could make criminal prosecution a new tool against suspected patent infringers on both sides of the Atlantic. And because this is a treaty rather than legislation, it effectively takes the question out of public debate and just leaves it to congress to approve or reject the entire treaty. Want to guess how many people in congress want to be seen as "for piracy"? Any non-trivial software program infringes patents, Open Source or not. We're still in rather deep trouble regarding this, if anyone wants to push the issue. And their general counsel made clear, in a recent speech at OSBC, that they're still not willing to put down the patent "gun".
So, I can't say I think this is a good thing.
Bruce
Tactics aside... (Score:4, Interesting)
All the points you mention may be valid, but I think that's not the most important issue here. It doesn't matter what are Microsoft's future plans, the important thing is that they have seen the need for a major change in tactics. This means they are starting to see the possibility of defeat.
Re:Tactics aside... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's not get overconfident. Whatever gains we once made on the desktop have been blown away by Apple. Despite the fact that we give away a wonderful compatible office suite in OpenOffice 3 for free, most companies and individuals are still buying MS Office. The software patent system is still tilted against us, and may be getting worse depending on an upcoming treaty - assumptions that the Bilski case will solve the problem for us are unrealistic to say the least. And it looks like they will get ISO to publish Office Open XML.
So, sure Microsoft is positioning itself for future strategy, but I bet they still see themselves winning. And they may well do so.
Bruce
Re:Tactics aside... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not a zero-sum game and never has been. The bazaar model is not a replacement for the cathedral model, both can exist and flourish. The attitude that you are either with us or against us is flawed.
At this point, I don't see how MS can roll back the gains that Linux has made. These moves are probably a realization on their part of that fact. They never crushed Apple (far more evil and closed, in my eyes) and never really tried. Most of the examples of embrace, extend and extinguish were helped by the greed and incompetence of those who were embraced, extended and extinguished.
Re:Tactics aside... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, sorry, but those are three platitudes that I wasn't really discussing.
To put the issue of Open Source overconfidence in better perspective, though, I'd like to see one legislative change in the United States that is designed to help protect Open Source software. Just one. That would be a measure of our wins or lack thereof.
Bruce
Re:Maybe it has something to do with this ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The story you are referring to is written by a software patent proponent who would like to reverse the USPTO's new position on software patents. He is choosing google as his example in order to inflame other corporate attorneys into working on the problem in favor of software patenting.
I would be overjoyed if the Bilski case and other recent cases solved the software patent problem for us. But I think the reality is that congress is ready to repair the situation and restore whatever software patenting the courts and USPTO administrators take away.
In other news... (Score:2)
In other news-
- Hell froze over
- The moon turned blue
- George Bush renounced violence as the pathway to peace
- Oh, and Microsoft "embraced" open-source software
In the press release, Bill Gates was quoted as saying, "This is going to hurt you a lot more than it will me."
This oughta be more fun than a barrel fulla monkeys. It ain't over till the fat lady sings ... just wait until other shoe drops... yadda yadda.
And lest we forget ... (Score:2)
Never (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple will never use Intel processors.
Dell will never ship AMD processors.
Dell will never ship Linux.
These things happen. People can change their minds. Microsoft is still doing evil and illegal things on a regular basis (like last year, offering illegal bribes to get Nigeria to drop Mandriva) but not every single employee at Microsoft is evil. Not every department is necessarily evil.
Microsoft has been doing a number of reasonably good things for a while now, and everyone keeps suggesting they are part of some scheme and conspiracy. People shouldn't be completely shocked by this act.
I think it is just a continuation of a new trend towards being slightly less evil. Every time Microsoft opens more protocols, releases more code, and tries to work with the OSS community, instead of acting like children and calling names, I think the community should encourage Microsoft to continue the trend of migrating to a more open company.
Re:Never (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody is shocked, but everybody is rightfully suspicious.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
not every single employee at Microsoft is evil
Are you sure?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Plenty of companies make a profit while staying within the bounds of the law.
When leading a major corporation, you often have to make decisions in regards to ethics. Some companies care about ethics, and others don't.
There is a difference between winning market share in a competitive market, and destroying competition.
In addition to breaking laws, and destroying competition, Microsoft is also guilty of treating their customers poorly.
Are you going to seriously suggest Microsoft isn't evil?
Re:Microsoft is not evil (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"You ABSOLUTELY CANNOT join this project whatsoever' would be my response."
A response like that doesn't encourage them to release more. That is precisely the overt, childish behavior I was talking about. I understand being skeptical. But when they open code, says "thanks, hopefully we'll see more of that!"
"They really are that scared of breaking backward compatibility ABIs (even though they broke many with Vista)."
2000 broke ABIs. XP broke ABIs. Vista broke ABIs. And Microsoft has said Windows 7 will
My Gawd! (Score:2)
Wut (Score:2, Interesting)
I was bullshitting with my friends and said that I think Microsoft has two years left before it's no longer the leader of the operating system market. I said it with no real insight or evidence, I just claimed it and I bet 10 dollars against it.
218 days left... maybe I'll get to go on Oprah or something and show off my framed ten dollar bill. This slashdot entry is officially almost kind of like proof that I said what I did a little bit.
As big as this news is, assuming it's credible and lasting, I'm complet
are you thinking what I'm thinking? (Score:2)
They have joined the Apache Software Foundation as a Platinum member(at $100K USD a year)
They just bought out ISO. I wonder if this is getting a start on ASF?
This is a move against Linux... (Score:5, Interesting)
The real reason they are doing this is to make the option of running Apache on Windows more appealing. This way Windows has an easier time gaining ground on Linux in the server market.
Like others have said, embrace and extend typically leads to something getting extinguished. They are not to be trusted. Sorry.
Re:This is a move against Linux... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm fine with that. Saying, "okay, we're fine with you using Apache and PHP instead of IIS and ASP, but try them on Windows!" is a win-win.
The end users have choice. Linux shouldn't be the only choice, in the same way that Windows shouldn't be the only choice.
Competition is good. Interoperability is good. Choice is good.
Microsoft once believed they had to force and bully people into locked solutions. To an extent, portions of Microsoft still operate that way. But other portions of Microsoft realize they have market share, loads of wealth, and a huge staff. Why not just try to put out a good product and compete? Let the market decide.
Apache on Windows more appealing? (Score:3, Interesting)
The real reason they are doing this is to make the option of running Apache on Windows more appealing.
Not sure how this makes running Apache more "appealing" on Windows. I was under the impression that the Apache web server already ran fairly well on Windows. The code MS was donating was to the PHP project; the only thing they've given the ASF is money.
Nevertheless, I think I see your larger point about being wary of Microsoft's intentions. They certainly have a lot of ground to make up to win people's trust, especially with the debacle of the OOXML fast-track process.
However, I think what we're seeing w
In Soviet America... (Score:4, Funny)
irrelevant (Score:5, Interesting)
Have they renounced their "200 patents" claim? Have they stopped bundling, tying, and bullying vendors?
No.
All this other stuff is largely irrelevant. OSP is legally meaningless, the LGPL doesn't require Microsoft's blessing, and joining the Apache foundation could be as sinister as their ISO efforts.
Microsoft seems to have been moving a little in the right direction, but they are still far away from being trustworthy or respectable.
Its very probably a ploy /trap but it wont fly (Score:5, Interesting)
it has grown to such an extent that the scripts have become expertise fields in themselves. they are asking for "joomla experts" in elance, "oscommerce module programmers", "somephpscript api coders". not even plain straight 'php programmer'. you are already expected to have a good grip of php, mysql. these sub expertise fields can really vary in hourly rates that are accepted throughout the markets. as a php coder you may able to get $15 an hour if you're decent (even with the $3/ hour indians get), yet an "oscommerce expert" can fetch you over $20/hour, and other niche stuff can even fetch higher. and thats all telecommuting, not even talking about on-site positions.
im telling these to let you know that even the 'people's community' facet of LAMP has grown to be a market in itself, specializing into subfields. not only that, but as many medium businesses start to adopt lamp, we are increasingly being asked larger scale projects every day.
you cant match the will of the people. it has gone WAY larger than anyone can have a hack at.
but thats microsoft. they may not be able to hack at it, but they may definitely try to dent it. thats their philosophy.
Don't depress me. (Score:3, Interesting)
I would not work for $20/hour.
I want an open source registry (Score:3, Funny)
So I can convert it one file with a bunch of simple text config lines.
e.g. DRM_enable="NO"
Windows-Firewall_enable="NO"
Office-2007_reduce_to_sane_options="100"
Crash_screen_color="PURPLE"
XP_driver_compat="YES"
and so on, kind of like a really long rc.conf file.
Rings a bell (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Open Source Community,
We were wrong and we're sorry. As a token of our apology, here's a nice big wooden horse.
Sincerely,
Microsoft
"Membership" Does Not Apply (Score:4, Informative)
You can't "buy" a membership in the Apache Software Foundation, and corporations cannot become members. As has been [codeconsult.ch] blogged [agylen.com] elsewhere [wordpress.com], El Reg has its terminology wrong on this one.
Microsoft has agreed to a platinum level sponsorship [wordpress.com] of the Apache Software Foundation. If you browse to the page, you'll see that the benefits of sponsoring, even at that level, consist of a logo and a press release.
You can't buy a membership in the ASF. The only way to influence the ASF is to show up and talk code. Anyone can join the mailinglists and start contributing patches, and everyone who contributes a substantial amount of code signs a license agreement [apache.org] to clear the IP. If folks contribute code of consistent quality, they become committers. As they show their interest in the project surpasses their day to day circumstances (like affiliation), they are invited to the Project Management Committee. Show that you have the interests of the foundation at heart, and you'll likely be invited to become a member and get to vote in board elections. That's how it works [apache.org]. Membership can be earned, but not bought.
-- Sander Temme - Member, Apache Software Foundation
Re:The Mayans were wrong (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Mark my words. Duke Nukem Forever will ship within the next calendar year. Prey went from vaporware to shipping. People have recently seen and played Duke Nukem Forever. 3D Realms is actually going to ship it.
However, we can always mock the Phantom Console, which will never ship.
Re:The Mayans were wrong (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Mayans were wrong (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the interpretation was that 2012 was just the end of era, not necessarily some Armageddon.
Re:The Mayans were wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The Mayans were wrong (Score:5, Funny)
yes, but they had no era defined for what happened next
Ah, so the world will end not with a bang, but with a segfault.
Re:The Mayans were wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, they didn't do that, either. A rollover of a particular long cycle in the Long Count calendar occurs then, and its one that has correspondence to an end of a previous creation recorded in their myth (the last 5 numbers of the date are the same, and only those last 5 numbers are recorded, which was apparently fairly common practice), from which various New Age folks invented the idea that Maya Calendar prediced the end of the world on December 21, 2012. There are, in fact, specific predictions made in some Maya writings of predicted future events clearly within this creation on dates in the Long Count that would post-date December 21, 2012, so its pretty clear that if such a belief in the end of the creation on 12.19.19.17.19 existed (for which there is, AFAIK, not one bit of evidence), it certainly wasn't universal.
Re:The Mayans were wrong (Score:5, Funny)
13.0.0.0.0 is supposed to be the end of the present creation, rather than just a change of the same significance as the rollover to 12.0.0.0.0 from 11.19.19.17.19.
Maybe 13.0.0.0.0 is the era of the linux desktop.
Re:The Mayans were wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
More probably, 2007 was The Year of the Linux Desktop. The Asus eeePC showed that the Linux desktop is a perfectly viable business proposition, at the same time that Windows Vista flopped in the market.
Microsoft isn't defeated yet, but they are certainly doing a strategic retreat. You can be quite sure they will do their best effort to regroup and counterattack, but at this moment no one can deny that free software is advancing.
Re:The Mayans were wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft is often accused of pissing off their user base and risking corporate and government conversions to competitors due to them continually trying to create vendor lock-in. Here's an idea that sounds like the absolute worst thing (from MS's point of view), but I'm starting to think it is the most profitable thing that MS could do, and would guarantee MS's future prosperity in a way that nothing else could:
Make MS products open source. MS faces the most competition in the markets dominated by elite users such as computer science majors and the like, so why not join the competition? If that were to happen, MS would instantly gain thousands of pro-bono security reviewers, feature implementers, etc.; they'd have all the benefits that open source projects have. I would bet anything that a team (it would be wise for MS to start it) would form to port MS operating systems onto the Linux kernel. ODF would be written into all Office apps, and the best part is that MS would stand to lose nothing. The open source environment has a way of coalescing around the most mature applications. How many OpenOffice developers would love nothing more than to work all the features they love about OO into Office? If MS truly GPL'd their software, they would gain unstoppable momentum. Developers, developers, developers!
I know, I know, here's the obvious reason this would never work: MS doesn't want to give away their software. The kicker is, people would buy the packaged and supported official OS, even if they could roll their own for free. Look at the Red Hat business model; corporations and other large entities want support, and they want a large company holding their hand and telling them that it will be OK. My parents aren't going to download tarballs and compile Vista because the majority of people will happily pay for convenience. OK, so other people can roll their own MS based packages and try to sell them, you say? MS has the most brand-awareness that has ever existed. Ubuntu's Ubunista (now with Office 2007 and Exchange!) will not out sell Microsoft's CollabOS, because people will buy what they know best. The media hype around the decision will leave the average user with the thought that MS has done something to make their product even greater, not with the thought that they can now go to someone they've never heard about and buy MS Office.
It seems to me that MS would retain the majority of their customers, be given the labor that would transform their products into the best software that exists for free, gain market share in the tech crowd as their products mature, and steal developers from their OSS competitors. All at the same time. What am I missing here?
Re:The Mayans were wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
If MS truly GPL'd their software, they would gain unstoppable momentum. Developers, developers, developers!
But at what cost? Sure, they'd probably end up with the best OS in the world, but they'd have to give it away! Microsoft makes huge amounts of money on OEM and corporate distribution without ever having to provide support. Selling support happens to be the only long-term, viable strategy for GPL software, and even then, you can't have a monopoly on it. I could sell support for Redhat OS if I wanted to.
Dell sells millions of computers per year. Even at a Microsoft tax of $10/unit, a lowball estimate of the microsoft tax, they would save millions per year by just hiring a small team at $50k/year to do quality assurance, cutting out Microsoft.
Re:The Mayans were wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
What you're missing is the culture of control at Microsoft. The attitude of management in the company is that they know what is best for the industry. They were forged in the theories of Vertical Integration and the power of Intellectual Property. The concepts of a long tail, a peer-collaboration approach, or an open relinquishing of control and trust in the market are not things that have ever occurred to anyone at that company.
All the Microsoft employees I know corroborate this attitude. And I know quite a few, since I live in Seattle. (Even if they disagree with the concepts, they agree that it is the dominant modus operandi for management.)
Note that these are attitudes that are very common in companies, especially big ones that dominate their respective industries.
The attitude is, "Whatever you can do, we can do better. Our way."
They are too stubborn. (Score:3, Funny)
This is clearly the solution to today's MS's woes, Who would companies trust to support their Windows systems if they were open? Microsoft or a third party two bits firm?
What would be the most used Windows distro? Microsoft's or any other?
Software is services and support. The sooner MS realizes this and embraces and genuinely extends technology, the sooner we will forgive all their sins and welcome them to the open ecosystem.
Yeah, hell freezing over would be nice as well.
Re:Circling the drain.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Circling the drain.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Circling the drain.... (Score:4, Interesting)
You know, it's funny, but despite the success of open source, embracing it is something companies have been known to do when they're on the rocks. Novell did it, Palm is trying to do it - heck, Netscape is the shining example, with the Mozilla project announcement - and I think there are others that have crashed and nearly burned, only at the last minute to say "And we'll be opening the source of the next version!" or "And we're going to run the next device on Linux!"
I wonder what sparked this at Microsoft. Granted, they have no real prospects besides the usual Windows/Office cash cows, but they're not exactly bleeding money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If by failure you mean "still dominates the desktop market at about 90%" and by skyrocketing you mean "OS X has budged a few points, more at the expense of Linux desktops than Microsoft" then you might be right.
That being said, I don't trust this at all. I smell evil afoot.
Re:Circling the drain.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Their cash is circling the drain.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Perspective is a funny thing. If you consider that they had $63 billion in 2004, it means they are losing $10 billion/year. Well, not exactly losing, since most of that has been paid to stockholders as dividends, but the fact remains that they *have* to use their cash pile to keep their market value from plunging, operational profits alone won't do it.
Re:Their cash is circling the drain.... (Score:4, Informative)
It's my understanding that they've deliberately been getting rid of their excess money beacuse their shareholders weren't happy with it — after all, it's really their money and it was just sitting their waiting for a rainy day that's probably never going to come. Microsoft could give all their money to me tomorrow (and I hope they do!), and the company would have more money than they know what to do with before you say "Microsoft shareholders have launched a lawsuit against their board for 'irresponsibly' donating all their money to a very worthwhile Slashdotter".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
True, but if you want to see what could be an impetus for change, flip that link over to the stock chart, overlay with AAPL and switch to the 10-year view.
I leave it you the reader to do that....and I hope you're not afraid of heights.
-Matt
Re:Yeah, right (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Is this stage 4? (Score:4, Insightful)
That strategy only worked for Gandhi because the British were basically civilized. It wouldn't work so well against, say, the Khmer Rouge.
It's hard to say what the case is here.
Bollocks. (Score:5, Insightful)
The British killed millions (just in Kenya 1 million natives died during rebellions prior to independence).
This nonsense about how civilized the British were while oppressing other peoples has got really to stop, it has no base in any credible evidence.
Re:Bollocks. (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't dispute that. I'll do you one better: they invented the concentration camp during the Boer Wars.
That still doesn't change the fact that during Gandhi's time they collectively felt squeamish about thrashing unarmed colonists.
Re:Is this stage 4? (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So my response is: wait for an announcement elsewhere.
You mean like the announcement currently at the top of Apache's [apache.org] homepage?
Re:Late.. (Score:5, Funny)
The release of this April Fools gag was handled by the Vista team.