eweek.com— I recently took a look at Microsoft's most active open-source projects and?there's no polite way to say this?they are all junk.
Aug 23, 2007View in Crawl 4
Yeah, the author is missing a few brain cells. I mean wow... seriously, excuse me while I tear this guy a new one. I'm not much of a microsoft fan (I use mac/osx) but come on this it senseless bashing... lets just call a spade a spade. Besides, it seriously sounds like to me the author doesn't understand what codeplex is. Yes, the source code on codeplex is obviously open source but just because it's open source that shouldn't imply anything else. That doesn't mean that it must use open standards/platforms and like I said it shouldn't imply anything else so don't cry about how microsoft broke the precious unwritten rules of OSS... it's just lame. Codeplex is basically just like sourceforge except it is for people who write software using microsoft development tools/frameworks. The system itself is owned/hosted/maintained by microsoft but is stops there. It sounds like to me this guy thinks microsoft has it's hands in every project hosted in codeplex. Nope, wrong. Go ahead put your own python, perl, or whatever project you like into codeplex... as far as I know there aren't any rules against it. The majority of the projects hosted on codeplex have nothing to do with microsoft other than the fact that the target users are people who write software for thier platforms. True, microsoft does maintain some of the projects in codeplex so you can think whatever you want to think about that... but just realize for a second or at least acknowledge the fact that most of the projects are developed by teams of individuals who work completely independent of microsoft (aside from their platform of choice). I would say the author is in denial about a number of things... that said, he is probably also in denial about the fact that there are a lot of people who actually use a development platform because they *gasp* - like it... believe it or not... not every developer is concerned about being politically OSS correct and fighting for freedom against right-wing-corporate conspiracies. Like I said, I don't think the guy understands what codeplex is about... if he actually does then he's just loony and his next article will be about how a few bad projects in sourceforge ruined the whole thing and then he will declare that the rest of the projects and the system itself is bad. I will admit that some of the top projects are slightly underwhelming but that's no reason to start getting crunk on hater-aide... believe it or not there are a lot of great projects on codeplex. Umbraco is one example... currently one of my favorite open source projects... and it's *gasp* Asp.Net and *tears* hosted in codeplex. So what? It's still good software. Go cry about it if you want but just know that not everyone gets all whiny about OSS purity. Also, in response to the samples and practices projects... for real, those projects aren't too exciting... BUT some people use these things for testing purposes or for example purposes... so yeah, not that exciting but they are what they are and they can be handy for a wide range of uses. It's just too bad that a lot of folks are apparently ill informed about codeplex.
There are rules that one must comply with to be considered to be open source. They are well established. Even open formats have to follow certain rules. This is one of the reasons that Microsoft's OOXML has never made it past the standards vote. It doesn't comply with even the most basic of the standards requirements. So, in reality, nothing says it must be Linux. But it can't be "platform specific" because it doesn't follow the licenses that are generally accepted to define "open source". Remember the Microsoft "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" campaign of the 80s and 90s? Well this is precisely what is happening here. This is the first step. They are claiming to embrace to get others to become involved and to water down the idea of open source. Then they are going to extend it only into their platforms. This in turn is intended to extinguish the true Open Source model. Open Source is Open. That means not closed. Developing solely for one platform is closing the source. And, BTW, it isn't the model that matters, it is the license.If you can remember back to Sun's Java. Microsoft licensed that from Sun. Then they began their "embrace, extend, extinguish" campaign. The agreement between Microsoft and Sun (as far as I can recall) was that Microsoft was not permitted to make changes to it that would make it platform specific. So, Microsoft didn't make changes to make it proprietary, they extended it so that the extensions were platform proprietary. This was an attempt to extinguish Sun's offering (Sun's offering was intended to ensure that their code ran on all platforms). With a good amount of development going to "Microsoft's proprietary extensions" (that development happened because people weren't aware of the Sun requirement (and their goals), nor that Microsoft was embarking on their "embrace, extend, extinguish" campaign) that meant that the code would not run on other platforms other than Windows, and hence was extinguishing development for the "true" Java.As you may well know, after the courts finished with this, Microsoft was ordered to remove their Java Virtual Machine from Windows. Now we have Java running again on all platforms and the extinguish part of their plan failed. Microsoft firmly believed, and it was shown clearly in the court documents that they believed that Sun's Java was a threat to their OS (Windows).In this case, with their "open source" campaign, which is unfolding just like the anti-Sun Java campaign, they are first embracing it, then they will extend it to their proprietary platform, in an effort to extinguish true open source which complies with the licenses that generally define "open source". The only notable difference here is that in the past they had to contend with Sun, but with the open source industry they have no one that can truly sue them or complain to the Justice Department about this very obvious anti-competitive activity that it is beginning to wage against the true purveyors of "open source".
Of course the software didn't have any contact with home-building materials. The point is concerned with the motives you're supporting by your purchase. Was the FOSS written for the sake of operability? For Freedom? For development continuity? Or was it simply to support truly proprietary methods in the end?
Correction -- most of the people who claim Vista is horrible PROUDLY PROCLAIM that they haven't used Windows in years and have NEVER LOOKED BACK. They're even stupider than you think.
Aren't the programs he lists as Linux only also available on Windows? False statement! Open source has nothing to do with the tools that are used! Another false statement. Buried as inaccurate!
Using the author's logic, or lack thereof; an application can not be open source if the tools used to develop it and the OS it runs on are not both open source. Crap article full of holes!
mattiptonAug 24, 2007
Yeah, the author is missing a few brain cells. I mean wow... seriously, excuse me while I tear this guy a new one. I'm not much of a microsoft fan (I use mac/osx) but come on this it senseless bashing... lets just call a spade a spade. Besides, it seriously sounds like to me the author doesn't understand what codeplex is. Yes, the source code on codeplex is obviously open source but just because it's open source that shouldn't imply anything else. That doesn't mean that it must use open standards/platforms and like I said it shouldn't imply anything else so don't cry about how microsoft broke the precious unwritten rules of OSS... it's just lame. Codeplex is basically just like sourceforge except it is for people who write software using microsoft development tools/frameworks. The system itself is owned/hosted/maintained by microsoft but is stops there. It sounds like to me this guy thinks microsoft has it's hands in every project hosted in codeplex. Nope, wrong. Go ahead put your own python, perl, or whatever project you like into codeplex... as far as I know there aren't any rules against it. The majority of the projects hosted on codeplex have nothing to do with microsoft other than the fact that the target users are people who write software for thier platforms. True, microsoft does maintain some of the projects in codeplex so you can think whatever you want to think about that... but just realize for a second or at least acknowledge the fact that most of the projects are developed by teams of individuals who work completely independent of microsoft (aside from their platform of choice). I would say the author is in denial about a number of things... that said, he is probably also in denial about the fact that there are a lot of people who actually use a development platform because they *gasp* - like it... believe it or not... not every developer is concerned about being politically OSS correct and fighting for freedom against right-wing-corporate conspiracies. Like I said, I don't think the guy understands what codeplex is about... if he actually does then he's just loony and his next article will be about how a few bad projects in sourceforge ruined the whole thing and then he will declare that the rest of the projects and the system itself is bad. I will admit that some of the top projects are slightly underwhelming but that's no reason to start getting crunk on hater-aide... believe it or not there are a lot of great projects on codeplex. Umbraco is one example... currently one of my favorite open source projects... and it's *gasp* Asp.Net and *tears* hosted in codeplex. So what? It's still good software. Go cry about it if you want but just know that not everyone gets all whiny about OSS purity. Also, in response to the samples and practices projects... for real, those projects aren't too exciting... BUT some people use these things for testing purposes or for example purposes... so yeah, not that exciting but they are what they are and they can be handy for a wide range of uses. It's just too bad that a lot of folks are apparently ill informed about codeplex.
hermmunsterAug 24, 2007
There are rules that one must comply with to be considered to be open source. They are well established. Even open formats have to follow certain rules. This is one of the reasons that Microsoft's OOXML has never made it past the standards vote. It doesn't comply with even the most basic of the standards requirements. So, in reality, nothing says it must be Linux. But it can't be "platform specific" because it doesn't follow the licenses that are generally accepted to define "open source". Remember the Microsoft "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" campaign of the 80s and 90s? Well this is precisely what is happening here. This is the first step. They are claiming to embrace to get others to become involved and to water down the idea of open source. Then they are going to extend it only into their platforms. This in turn is intended to extinguish the true Open Source model. Open Source is Open. That means not closed. Developing solely for one platform is closing the source. And, BTW, it isn't the model that matters, it is the license.If you can remember back to Sun's Java. Microsoft licensed that from Sun. Then they began their "embrace, extend, extinguish" campaign. The agreement between Microsoft and Sun (as far as I can recall) was that Microsoft was not permitted to make changes to it that would make it platform specific. So, Microsoft didn't make changes to make it proprietary, they extended it so that the extensions were platform proprietary. This was an attempt to extinguish Sun's offering (Sun's offering was intended to ensure that their code ran on all platforms). With a good amount of development going to "Microsoft's proprietary extensions" (that development happened because people weren't aware of the Sun requirement (and their goals), nor that Microsoft was embarking on their "embrace, extend, extinguish" campaign) that meant that the code would not run on other platforms other than Windows, and hence was extinguishing development for the "true" Java.As you may well know, after the courts finished with this, Microsoft was ordered to remove their Java Virtual Machine from Windows. Now we have Java running again on all platforms and the extinguish part of their plan failed. Microsoft firmly believed, and it was shown clearly in the court documents that they believed that Sun's Java was a threat to their OS (Windows).In this case, with their "open source" campaign, which is unfolding just like the anti-Sun Java campaign, they are first embracing it, then they will extend it to their proprietary platform, in an effort to extinguish true open source which complies with the licenses that generally define "open source". The only notable difference here is that in the past they had to contend with Sun, but with the open source industry they have no one that can truly sue them or complain to the Justice Department about this very obvious anti-competitive activity that it is beginning to wage against the true purveyors of "open source".
adc86Aug 25, 2007
Of course the software didn't have any contact with home-building materials. The point is concerned with the motives you're supporting by your purchase. Was the FOSS written for the sake of operability? For Freedom? For development continuity? Or was it simply to support truly proprietary methods in the end?
fknightAug 25, 2007
Correction -- most of the people who claim Vista is horrible PROUDLY PROCLAIM that they haven't used Windows in years and have NEVER LOOKED BACK. They're even stupider than you think.
fknightAug 25, 2007
So now we're bitching because Microsoft chose to use their own server instead of SourceForge?
link5280Aug 27, 2007
Aren't the programs he lists as Linux only also available on Windows? False statement! Open source has nothing to do with the tools that are used! Another false statement. Buried as inaccurate!
link5280Aug 27, 2007
Using the author's logic, or lack thereof; an application can not be open source if the tools used to develop it and the OS it runs on are not both open source. Crap article full of holes!
smikey23Sep 2, 2007
My cats and dogs get along quite nicely.. :)