OSDN : SourceForgeShop ThinkGeekfreshmeatNewslettersTechJobsSlashdot Broadband Search »   X 
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Welcome to Slashdot Slashdot.org Hardware Patents Announcements Apache
 Login
 Why Login?
 Why Subscribe?

 Sections
 Main
 Apache
 Apple
 Askslashdot
  1 more
 Books
 BSD
 Developers
 Games
  11 more
 Interviews
 Science
  3 more
 YRO
 
 Help
 FAQ
 Bugs

 Stories
 Old Stories
 Old Polls
 Topics
 Hall of Fame
 Submit Story

 About
 Supporters
 Code
 Awards

 Services
 Broadband
 Online Books
 PriceGrabber
 Product News
 Tech Jobs
 IT Research

O'Reilly Sez Ask Craig Mundie
Microsoft Posted by Hemos on Friday June 08, @01:27PM
from the talking-with-the-man dept.
There's a news article up at O'Reilly that hypes their upcoming Open Source Convention and also sets up a forum to submit questions to potentially be asked to Mundie when he gives a keynote at the convention. Should be an interesting, perhaps vitriol-filled morning there.

UV Nanolasers From ZnO Nanowires | Computer Curriculum for Inner City Kids?  >

 

 
Slashdot Login
Nickname:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Go Create One. A user account will allow you to customize all these nutty little boxes, tailor the stories you see, as well as remember your comment viewing preferences.

Related Links
  • news article
  • O'Reilly
  • their upcoming Open Source Convention
  • More on Microsoft
  • Also by Hemos
  • This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    So... (Score:1, Troll)
    by Ayende Rahien on Friday June 08, @01:30PM EST (#4)
    (User #309542 Info)
    What, exactly, is .Net?

    And what is the difference between Open Source, Free Software, Linux and GPL.

    Do you have cancer?

    --

    Two witches watch two watches.
    Which witch watched which watch?
    Re:So... (Score:1, Funny)
    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08, @01:50PM EST (#40)
    Answer 1.
    .Net is like smoking lots of pot while snorting Classic coke from a Playboy model's clitoris while mainlining to the mainframe while being sucked off by everyone you ever looked at while listening to all of the Velvet Underground, Bill Hicks, Kraftwerk, KLF, Radiohead & Yello jamming while completing the original Jet Set Willy & Jet Set Radio while walking in space while knowing everything that ever happened or will happen simultaneously while playing Civ, but with a real planet. In your toilet. Twice.

    Answer 2.
    To draw an analogy,
    Open Source is like this - %
    Free Software is like this - ^
    Linux is like this - *
    GPL is like this - !
    Hope that clears it up.

    Answer 3.
    You're thinking of Craig Shergold. Or Clint Eastwood. Or maybe Clint Mansell. Or Colin Powell. Or maybe the man page for Tom Cruise. Or Captain Hemos. Or Skullkid. Or Shueboy. Or Cyborg Monkee. Or Bojay. Or Spork. Or Bismallah. Or the registry entry for HKEY\Longpig.
    Choose Liff.
    Re:So... (Score:2)
    by fanatic on Friday June 08, @08:15PM EST (#246)
    (User #86657 Info)
    Someone please mod this down - it's got a goatsex link.

    --
    "buckle your seatbelt, dorothy - kansas is going bye-bye."
    Mumdie's asnwers (Score:3, Funny)
    by Srin Tuar on Friday June 08, @01:52PM EST (#42)
    (User #147269 Info)

    To save you the time Ill tell you how he would answer:

    Q:What, exactly, is .Net?

    A: .Net is Innovation.

    Q: And what is the difference between Open Source, Free Software, Linux and GPL.

    A: They are all the same

    Q: Do you have cancer?

    A: No, I do not use open source products.

    What .NET is... (Score:5, Informative)
    by Carnage4Life on Friday June 08, @01:54PM EST (#44)
    (User #106069 Info)
    What, exactly, is .Net?

    Developer View:
    .NET is the next generation of Microsoft's component technologies (COM, COM+, DCOM) which incorporates lessons learned from Java. COM is a technology that allows you to interact with components written in different languages transparently and is descended from OLE (Object Linking and Embedding which is the technology that was developed to allow being able to drag an Excel spreadsheet into a Word document) and . The languages that support COM are the Visual Studio languages as well as Object Pascal (Delphi). COM has its own binary format and while works almost transparently from Javascript, VB, and VBScript is a bitch to work with from C++. DCOM is the same as COM but it adds being able to do RPC (remote method invokation for the Java heads) from components irrespective of what language they are written in, kinda like CORBA without the ORBs.

    .NET simplifies this by having a Common Language Runtime which is analogous to the Java JVM. COMable languages simply compile to the CLR format instead of to assembly code or a weird binary format. So this should lead to the best of both worlds by giving you all the functionality you have come to expect from the Java platform with the added benefit of using languages other than Java (C++, C#, VB, Javascript, VBScript, Perl and a few others) and transparently interact with objects written in these languages. Because all .NET languages have access to the CLR they can utilize it to extend themselves, e.g. Visual C++ has "managed extensions" that allows for garbage collection via the CLR.

    The major goal is then to use this technology to build XML based web services.

    Marketting View:
    Microsoft .NET is Microsoft’s XML Web services platform. This is the next generation of Internet computing, using XML to communicate among loosely coupled XML Web services that are collaborating to perform a particular task. Microsoft’s .NET strategy delivers a software platform to build new .NET experiences, a programming model and tools to build and integrate XML Web services, and a set of programmable Web interfaces.

    PS: Please do not take this as some official MSFT response, I'm merely an intern and in fact this is a reprint of a post I made before I got to Redmond.

    --
    The above post is my opinion and does not reflect the policies or views of my employer.
    Re:What .NET is... (Score:4, Funny)
    by Salsaman (gabriel@DIE.SPAMMERS.DIE.pixle.demon.co.uk) on Friday June 08, @02:01PM EST (#57)
    (User #141471 Info)
    In other words, java - without the advantages of java.


    Think $GLOBALLY, act /usr/local/ly !!

    Re:What .NET is... (Score:4, Interesting)
    by Carnage4Life on Friday June 08, @02:15PM EST (#78)
    (User #106069 Info)
    In other words, java - without the advantages of java.

    Depends on what you mean by the "advantages of Java". The primary advantages of Java are a.) ease of development and b.) cross platform support.
    1. C# is primarily a Java based language that fixes a couple of things Java got wrong (there is now a const keyword, there are out parameters, there is a foreach construct, there are enums, etc) and also has some annoying holdovers from C++ (what's the deal with the virtual keyword?).

      For ease of development I'd rank them about equal. If the development is Windows based then C# beats the pants off of Java since it has access to certain APIs directly instead of having to go through JNI as would be done in Java.

    2. Java is write once, run anywhere. This is a major advantage if you are running lots of client Java code on varying platforms. But since most Java development is server based then the fact that a program is WORA loses its charm. Secondly most Java communication between various platforms is done via RPC mechanisms (CORBA or RMI) and .NET supports an XML based RPC format called SOAP which is as cross platform as you can get since all the other platform needs is an HTTP server.

    One place .NET shines over Java is that you are not forced to do all your development in Java but instead can use the right tool for the job in different parts of your project and combine them seemlessly. Utilizing Perl classes from VB or inheriting from C# classes in C++ is very attractive and extremely cool.

    --
    The above post is my opinion and does not reflect the policies or views of my employer.
    Re:What .NET is... (Score:1)
    by A coward on a mouse on Friday June 08, @02:43PM EST (#116)
    (User #238331 Info)
    Actually, the WORA deal is important on the server side, too, unless you are married to your server platform. Having server programs that can be deployed on any server with a compatible VM allows you to take a successful internet service running on big iron and quickly package it up for sale to the intranet market, and vice versa. Unless and until MS actually comes up with an OS that can run reliably on truly large servers, WORA for server applications is the best way to keep your options open.
    Re:What .NET is... (Score:1)
    by elefantstn on Friday June 08, @02:45PM EST (#119)
    (User #195873 Info) http://www.shenknet.com
    One place .NET shines over Java is that you are not forced to do all your development in Java but instead can use the right tool for the job in different parts of your project and combine them seemlessly. Utilizing Perl classes from VB or inheriting from C# classes in C++ is very attractive and extremely cool.

    This is something that's said pretty often and has almost become conventional wisdom, but I take exception to it on two points:

    • Java can do that too. There's no reason other languages can't be written to compile to JVM bytecode, as Jython has. Multiple language functionality is not CLR advantage (although you could make the case that active support for so many languages is a .NET advantage).
    • It's bad programming practice to mix and match languages like that. Take your first example - utilizing Perl classes in VB. What happens if the developer who put your application together leaves? Now instead of finding of Perl developer or a VB developer, you have to find someone who knows both, and even if you do, it's going to be much more difficult for the new guy to get up to speed in a multi-language system.

    .NET may have some advantages over J2EE, but I don't think that's one of them. And, as a side note, I think multi-vendorism is the best selling point of J2EE. Right now, I'm building an application using Linux, PostgreSQL, and JBoss (GPL'ed EJB container). If its use takes off, I can very easily upgrade it to Solaris, Oracle, and Weblogic, with almost no code changes.


    Re:What .NET is... (Score:2)
    by Ayende Rahien on Saturday June 09, @01:26AM EST (#290)
    (User #309542 Info)
    No, Java can't do it.
    Or, to be rather exact, Java doesn't *do* it.
    ObjectWatch had a research about the details.

    It should be in http://www.objectwatch.com/Issue_33.htm in a couple of days.

    I no longer have the email, sorry.



    --

    Two witches watch two watches.
    Which witch watched which watch?
    Re:What .NET is... (Score:2)
    by Salsaman (gabriel@DIE.SPAMMERS.DIE.pixle.demon.co.uk) on Friday June 08, @03:08PM EST (#139)
    (User #141471 Info)
    In my job, I work with both NT and *nix servers, so the ability to WORA is vital, and I can vouch for the fact that java lives up to its promise in this area.

    Also, using java, you're not tied to one company - yeah, Sun sets most of the standards (currently), but IBM, Borland, Apache and many other organisations are also involved.

    As for SOAP, java can support that as well. I don't think SOAP is the be-all and end-all though, because it is designed to work over http and pass through firewalls. I can't see too many secure sites will be rushing to use it.

    Granted, C# sounds very interesting but it seems waaaaay too Microsoft centric for my liking.


    Think $GLOBALLY, act /usr/local/ly !!

    Re:What .NET is... (Score:1)
    by lgraba on Friday June 08, @03:47PM EST (#172)
    (User #34653 Info)
    "As for SOAP, java can support that as well."

    A good tool for doing this, as well as UDDI and WSDL, easily is GLUE from http://www.themindelectric.com.

    Usually when I see someone demonstrating how SOAP works, they always show how the XML messages are composed and parsed. ITS JUST A PROTOCOL, just like JRMP (RMI) and CORBA. I shouldn't have to manually compose the message to send over the wire, just like I don't do this in RMI or CORBA. I should be able to call something like RMIC to build the stubs and skeletons, and make simple method calls. GLUE provides tools to do that.

    I am not affiliated with the company, I just think that this is a necessary tool, and I'm glad to see it.
    Re:What .NET is... (Score:1)
    by lgraba on Friday June 08, @04:01PM EST (#181)
    (User #34653 Info)
    And here is another tool:
    http://extend.silverstream.com/workbench/app/jsp/j brokerweb.jsp

    It has an RMI-like programming environment:

    - If starting with Java RMI, the rmi2soap compiler generates SOAP stubs and skeletons, and the rmi2wsdl compiler generates WSDL
    - If starting from WSDL, the wsdl2java compiler generates the Java RMI interface and SOAP stubs and skeletons
    - The stubs are looked up by the client using standard Java JNDI APIs
    - The Java XML type mapping allows users to do custom serialization, as well as exchanging raw XML documents if required by the application

    Re:What .NET is... (Score:2, Insightful)
    by egomaniac on Friday June 08, @03:15PM EST (#148)
    (User #105476 Info)
    "Java is write once, run anywhere. This is a major advantage if you are running lots of client Java code on varying platforms. But since most Java development is server based then the fact that a program is WORA loses its charm"

    Ummm ... you don't develop server code, do you? You have this backwards. And I say this as a professional server-side Java developer.

    Client code is precisely where WORA is irrelevant, because Windows might as well be the only game in town. This is one of the big reasons why Java hasn't exactly taken the desktop by storm -- any sensible person, even a Java fan like myself, will tell you that Java has a number of disadvantages (primarily WRT to the GUI), and the ability to move to non-Windows platforms doesn't generally hold enough attraction to outweigh the disadvantages.

    The situation is completely different on the server, where there are tons of different architectures (Solaris, Linux, BSD, Win NT & 2000, AIX, etc.), and clients don't like having to buy and support new servers just to run your software.

    So if you want to deal with an AIX shop, you either write highly portable Unix code (a chore in itself) and rule out the Windows/etc. market, or you write Java code. A lot of people have been taking the latter option (and of course on a server there is no concern about Java's poor GUI performance). Java absolutely kicks ass on the server precisely because of its portability.
    Thank you. (Score:1)
    by Tony-A on Saturday June 09, @03:05PM EST (#338)
    (User #29931 Info)
    Makes sense. Further, a lot of server-side stuff will have embarassingly long lifetimes and need to keep working, unmodified, as the hardware platform is switched to a different vendor.
    Re:What .NET is... (Score:1)
    by Demerara (ronan-upon-mcdis-within-com) on Friday June 08, @03:34PM EST (#162)
    (User #256642 Info) http://www.mcdis.com
    Ooops, there you go again!

    seem - vb.

    appear, look, give the impression

    seam - vb.

    closure, ridge, line of stitching, joint

    From the Macrosift Word 2000 thesarus.

    Accordingly, I take it you mean "and combine them seamlessly"

    Hove a nice dai


    It's GUYana, not GHana.

    Re:What .NET is... (Score:3, Interesting)
    by Jonathan on Friday June 08, @07:04PM EST (#229)
    (User #5011 Info) http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~jhbadger/
    One place .NET shines over Java is that you are not forced to do all your development in Java but instead can use the right tool for the job

    But what if one of the right tools is Java? Forcing someone *not* use Java (as .NET does) is just as bad as forcing someone to always use it (which Java doesn't BTW -- long before MS "innovated" .NET, Java had JNI)

    Re:What .NET is... (Score:2)
    by Pinball Wizard (josheverist@yahoo.com) on Friday June 08, @08:14PM EST (#245)
    (User #161942 Info) http://www.page1book.com/images/dilbertbase.jpg
    Forcing someone *not* use Java (as .NET does)

    Well, since .NET is an open spec there is nothing to prevent Sun or IBM from porting Java to it.

    However, because of Sun's stranglehold over Java, Microsoft cannot legally do this themselves. Someone else must do this.

    Don't blame MS for leaving Java out of .NET. It's really Sun who is "forcing" this, as you put it.

    Miranda's murder was never solved because the suspect invoked his right to remain silent. Now that's ironic.

    Re:What .NET is... (Score:2)
    by sheldon on Friday June 08, @10:38PM EST (#256)
    (User #2322 Info) http://www.sodablue.org
    As I recall, Rational or some similar company intends to offer Java compiler for the .Net platform.

    It's not Microsoft who is trying to kill Java, that privilege belongs to Sun who wishes to keep it proprietary at all costs.

    -- Access to www.tuxedo.org has been denied by SurfControl.
    Re:What .NET is... (Score:1)
    by m$ is great on Saturday June 09, @06:24AM EST (#323)
    (User #452489 Info)
    I think people keep forgetting that Microsoft is not the single player in the C# development. The other companions are Intel and HP ... So you /.ers stop bitching about MS.
    Where will you take me today, M$?
    Re:What .NET is... (Score:1)
    by gupta (iam@not.from.india) on Friday June 08, @02:14PM EST (#77)
    (User #413494 Info)
    even though i am not fan of MS and windows, i am sure .Net will kick Java's b&#! on Windows. who
    Re:What .NET is... (Score:1)
    by wrinkledshirt on Friday June 08, @02:32PM EST (#98)
    (User #228541 Info)

    Good lord.

    COM, COM+, DCOM, OLE, VB, CORBA, ORB, JVM, CLR, XML...?

    On top of everything else, it appears .Net is an excellent conversation starter to drop acronyms with...

    Re:What .NET is... (Score:1)
    by egomaniac on Friday June 08, @02:57PM EST (#125)
    (User #105476 Info)
    "...best of both worlds by giving you all the
    functionality you have come to expect from the Java platform with the added benefit of using languages other than Java (C++, C#, VB, Javascript, VBScript, Perl and a few others)..."

    Or rather, it gives me all of the functionality I have come to expect, other than the ability to run on non-Windows platforms, a fantastic component library, a far more capable graphics library, incredible ease of loading and linking new code, and a million other things. .Net has all the disadvantages of Java but none of its advantages.

    But, the advantage of .Net is that instead of restricting myself to one good language, I can have my team of programmers writing the project in a half-dozen bad languages, none of which is comprehensible to more than one of them. Woohoo!

    Seriously, though, I truly don't consider that an advantage. Try working on a two million line program, chunks of which are written in dead languages nobody around understands, and which only compile in specific old versions of their respective compilers, and *then* tell me that giving a team of fifty people the ability to each use absolutely any language they please is a Good Thing.
    Re:What .NET is... (Score:1)
    by malfunct on Friday June 08, @05:00PM EST (#203)
    (User #120790 Info) http://honors.montana.edu/~malfunct
    "a far more capable graphics library" Um? .NET has access to GDI+ as well as DirectX which seems to me to give it all the graphics capability that you could ever want.

    "You can now flame me, I am full of love,"

    Re:What .NET is... (Score:1)
    by egomaniac on Friday June 08, @05:13PM EST (#209)
    (User #105476 Info)
    You say this as someone who has never used Java2D.
    Re:What .NET is... (Score:1)
    by rohar on Friday June 08, @03:04PM EST (#130)
    (User #253766 Info)
    So this should lead to the best of both worlds by giving you all the functionality you have come to expect from the Java platform with the added benefit of using languages other than Java (C++, C#, VB, Javascript, VBScript, Perl and a few others) and transparently interact with objects written in these languages.

    The only real value of Java is the cross-platform ability. If .NET is a Microsoft only technology, it doesn't really mean anything, I might as well continue to use VB/VC++. I also don't see any real improvement in Win2000, (or XP for that matter) above NT4.


    Whatcha doooo with those rollin' papers?
    Make doooooobieees?
      - Chris Farley

    Re:What .NET is... (Score:1)
    by Demerara (ronan-upon-mcdis-within-com) on Friday June 08, @03:22PM EST (#151)
    (User #256642 Info) http://www.mcdis.com
    You would think, wouldn't you, that ALL that technology would help a body spell properly.

    Marketting View:

    Market Marketing

    .Net .Netting .AbsolutelyNettingAtAll


    It's GUYana, not GHana.

    Re:What .NET is... (Score:4, Insightful)
    by blakestah (dblake@phy.ucsf.edu) on Friday June 08, @03:34PM EST (#161)
    (User #91866 Info) http://www.keck.ucsf.edu/~dblake
    Come on, don't spew the company line. Talk in plain English.

    .NET is several things to Microsoft. First and foremost it is intended to kill Java and any other competition for internet based apps. Secondly, it is designed to interoperate with Microsoft's new revenue model in which each person pays $100 each year for the privilege of using Office, and varying amounts for other Microsoft apps. Thirdly, it is meant to give Microsoft a stranglehold on all internet based communications. .NET will require Microsoft name resolution, Microsoft SMTP, and just about anything else from Microsoft as well. The internet will be a COMPLETELY different world if you are running Windows than if you are not.

    In short, with .NET Microsoft hopes to do to the internet what they did to the desktop in the early and mid 90s - own it and leverage it. It will promise benefits to the consumer but provide none.
    Re:What .NET is... (Score:2)
    by Ayende Rahien on Saturday June 09, @01:32AM EST (#291)
    (User #309542 Info)
    You *do* realize that 100$ a year, plus the automatic upgrade, is *cheaper* than the current price?

    --

    Two witches watch two watches.
    Which witch watched which watch?
    Re:What .NET is... (Score:1)
    by rking on Saturday June 09, @08:11AM EST (#326)
    (User #32070 Info)
    You *do* realize that 100$ a year, plus the automatic upgrade, is *cheaper* than the current price?

    Depends what price you currently pay.

    My employers recently upgraded from Office 95 to Office 2000, I doubt we'll upgrade to Office XP any time soon and I don't doubt there are any number of businesses still using Office 95 (or earlier versions for that matter). What are you using as the current price per annum?

    Why would you think people want an automatic upgrade? If we'd automatically been upgraded to Office 97 we would have had to carry out extensive testing for compatibility between that and our templates and other applications across all our offices. What exactly would have been so great about that when it didn't have any features attractive enough to us to want to buy it?
    Re:What .NET is... (Score:1)
    by malfunct on Friday June 08, @04:55PM EST (#201)
    (User #120790 Info) http://honors.montana.edu/~malfunct
    It seems that moreover .NET is a philosophy of program development. You did a great job of explaining the .NET framework and CLR and such but you left out the whole idea that the .NET is about computing anywhere, anytime, on any device and having a rich user centered experience.

    This is accomplished by the web services using XML to transfer data between all the apps and devices. Its about the experience more than its about the way to develop that experience.

    "You can now flame me, I am full of love,"

    Re:What .NET is... (Score:1)
    by Vspirit on Friday June 08, @06:17PM EST (#220)
    (User #200600 Info) http://www.sophistic.com
    "What .NET is..." all looks like a very intelligent posting, but now let me ask a few simple questions, as I'm wondering..

    1. Howcome this posting is deadon-topic and given 5 in score? - 'what is .NET' could be a question to ask Mundie, but what can you possibly expect to hear back in the short time he can let out the words, that you cannot find detailed described on the net already. - What would be more interesting to ask, "why .NET from a non-MSFT POV? - how will adopting .NET in everyones strategies not lead to less independence from MSFT, and wouldn't jumping the MSFT .NET bandwagon instead of an alternative solution, give MSFT the upper hand in the competition?"

    2. Howcome there are no serious zealot responses?(there may be some reverse psychology in the 'funny-department' replies, but I haven't found them yet.

    3. Why is it that I do not trust this .NET being less beneficial to MSFT compared to in general? - Should this .NET become the 'platform' of the future, as stated in the posting, it integrates superbly with and is designed for windows - the closed API's. Yes it seems to provide some interesting features, but at what cost, and why should we as developers and competitors (although very very small ones), adopt the MSFT embraced technology with them in the lead? - with the past and MSFT business strategies in mind (many have already thanks to this, found themselves obsolete

    I'm simply asking..
    If you can use this its free.. else I have to charge! uhmm, sigs that are supposed to be funny often are not.

    Re:What .NET is... (Score:1)
    by Chagrin on Friday June 08, @06:42PM EST (#225)
    (User #128939 Info)
      Because all .NET languages have access to the CLR they can utilize it to extend themselves
    Oooo crap. Now they've written a language to do Microsoft's dirty work all by itself!

    * This user has donated to the EFF and written his congressman.

    Re:What .NET is... (Score:1)
    by samantha (samantha@isis.aurinia.com) on Saturday June 09, @12:21AM EST (#278)
    (User #68231 Info)
    COM is a particular distributed messaging protocol like CORBA. When the rest of the world went with CORBA, which is multi-platform and multi-language, Microsoft went with a version of a DEC protocol that only worked on its OS and with a handful of MS specific language implementations. To this day, talking to D/COM is not open. To get to do this if you are not on a MS platform you need to pay thousands of dollars in licensing to MS. There is are half-assed unix implementations but only (AFAIK) for talking client-server with a MS box.

    If .NET is braced on COM then that is a major blow against it.

    CORBA has been used with Smalltalk, C, C++, CLOS, Python, Perl, Scheme, Pascal, Fortran, COBOL and so on on about every OS imaginable. It sits underneath RMI for Java as well as being directly supported on Java.

    Don't fall for MS hype. These people are not your friend and their code is not cool.

    Maybe I've just been around too long to appreciate the "oh wow" of seeing things invented many years ago in the non-MS world dressed up in MS bullshit and trotted out on the stage.

    Re:What .NET is... (Score:1)
    by quark137 on Saturday June 09, @01:51AM EST (#293)
    (User #248723 Info)
    At the risk of encouraging an off-shoot thread...

    I think COM is nicely done! I remember, when COM first appeared (post-OLE incarnation), I read the whole, huge COM white paper, and thought -- "This is nicely done. If I had to do something like this, I would make mostly the same kinds of design decisions."

    --RANT--
    Java has issues! Big ones!! From my perspective, Sun had the oppurtunity to really have something great. Instead, their greed got the better of them. They spent more time hyping it than actually learning to let go and see it blossom. I realize that this point, or point of view rather, will offend many. However, I maintain that Java is no "free"-er under Sun, than C# is under MS. And, that without considering all the floundering around Java that Sun did: Remember when Java was just a Web language, then they said it would be the next big client platform, and now the server platform, followed by the mobile plarform, followed by the embedded platform...
    Remember the Java ring! Remember the PicoJava chip..
    --RANT--

    I don't think people (at least I) have much of an issue with the "XML Services" concept in general.
    I think what irks (sp!) people about this whole idea is rooted in the deep fear of what it has the potential to become under MS. I know the MS guys keep saying how SOAP is cross-platform, and all you need is an HTTP server. That's all well and good, but let me "Become Bill" (TM) for a moment:

    1) Make Windows client and server the best platform to develop and host SOAP based services

    2) To help achieve #1, bring out the fastest possible SOAP implementation in the market by utilizing "custom" API hooks (and invent new ones if necessary). Then build development systems where any half-moron can develop a SOAP based service without having the faintest idea of the bigger picture (like security!).

    3) Now that we have the best platform for SOAP, and all these services that are based on it, our customer are asking us for more "advanced" features.

    4) Lets implement some SOAP extensions, that will give 90% of the computing population exactly what they want. It may not be a standard, but 90% market share does not need no stinking "standard." (Note: NTLM authentication hooks under both IE and IIS).

    5) In 10 years, Windows IS the way to host and use web services. Using Windows SOAP services client, Slashdot users regularly complain about how bad Windows is.

    Wow, Smart move by Tim (Score:1)
    by kavi_3 on Friday June 08, @01:32PM EST (#5)
    (User #5872 Info)
    This will help boost attendence to that convention.
    "Attention Citizens, 2+2 now equals 3.947547175. Please recalibrate your equipment now" --The Computer
    Re:Wow, Smart move by Tim (Score:3, Interesting)
    by Zigg (matt@zigg.com?subject=[SLASHDOT]) on Friday June 08, @02:22PM EST (#89)
    (User #64962 Info)

    Tim seems to have a knack for calling controversial folk to the mat. Remember Bezos and one-click?


    "If you continue running Windows, your system may become unstable." - Windows 95 BSOD
    parrot/o'reilly (Score:1)
    by grovertime (vandallay2 AT hotmail dot com) on Friday June 08, @01:33PM EST (#7)
    (User #237798 Info) http://www.nowjones.com
    will there be much discussion on the parrot language at the convention - i'm lookin for info, where is the best place to go?

      is this.....is this for REAL?

    Would you calculate MS's profits using int (Score:4, Funny)
    by Hairy_Potter (T_Rone@hotmail.com) on Friday June 08, @01:36PM EST (#19)
    (User #219096 Info) http://members.xoom.com/T_rone/T_RONE.HTM
    or long int?

    We are talking billions and billions here.

    Or would you use a real number for the decimal accuracy?
    Re:Would you calculate MS's profits using int (Score:2)
    by sheldon on Friday June 08, @01:38PM EST (#22)
    (User #2322 Info) http://www.sodablue.org
    Under the .Net CLR, int is 32-bit and long is 64-bit.

    Just might want to keep that in mind. :)

    -- Access to www.tuxedo.org has been denied by SurfControl.
    Re:Would you calculate MS's profits using int (Score:2, Funny)
    by Xpilot (elecbyte@yahoo.com) on Friday June 08, @01:47PM EST (#37)
    (User #117961 Info) http://www.elecbyte.com
    On Sun, we have long long :)
    Re:Would you calculate MS's profits using int (Score:1)
    by pnatural on Friday June 08, @02:28PM EST (#94)
    (User #59329 Info)
    Ah, true. But you could measure the the profits of Sun(tm) using a short.
    Re:Would you calculate MS's profits using int (Score:2)
    by Mike Schiraldi (mgs21@columbia.edu) on Friday June 08, @08:30PM EST (#248)
    (User #18296 Info) http://cumb.org
    Unsigned or signed?

    [ignore this text, it's to override the moronic "lameness filter]

    --
    [ Don't confuse stderr with stdout. They hate that. ]

    Re:Would you calculate MS's profits using int (Score:1)
    by sultanoslack (scott at slackorama dot net) on Friday June 08, @01:59PM EST (#50)
    (User #320583 Info) http://www.slackorama.net
    No, no. You see "int" and "longint" are too standards compliant. They'd of course come up with something that didn't work quite as well but made it such that no other compiler could compile the code to compute their profits. Maybe "eInt" or ".int" or .
    Re:Would you calculate MS's profits using int (Score:1)
    by MaxwellsSilverHammer on Friday June 08, @02:57PM EST (#126)
    (User #10318 Info) http://home.austin.rr.com/johnb/
    No, no. That doesn't go with existing 'standard' convention. You need something like 'MyInt' or 'MSintOLE-2.013'.


    Re:Would you calculate MS's profits using int (Score:1)
    by NoOneInParticular on Friday June 08, @03:04PM EST (#132)
    (User #221808 Info)
    Funny, made me remember an MS white paper I saw a couple of years ago, discussing how to port the Win32 API to Win64. The thing that really made me laugh out loud was the integer handling. They actually suggested a couple of macros:

    INT64

    but also

    LONG64

    both in signed and unsigned variants.

    So the question could actually be:

    Would you calculate MS's profits in int64 or in long64?


    Re:Would you calculate MS's profits using int (Score:2)
    by Ayende Rahien on Saturday June 09, @03:19AM EST (#305)
    (User #309542 Info)
    Well, that depend on the unit that you measure it.
    If you measure it in billions, you could use a byte, unsigned one, for the next couple of months, then you would have to move to unsigned short.

    If you want it in dollars, then it's:
    huge long long hllMicrosoftProfits;



    --

    Two witches watch two watches.
    Which witch watched which watch?
    embrace & extend - open source (Score:3, Interesting)
    by maddogsparky on Friday June 08, @01:40PM EST (#26)
    (User #202296 Info)
    Microsoft often uses the phrase "embrace and extend" to describe its extentions to existing standards. What are Microsofts plans with regard to opening up its proprietary extensions to other developers, in light of its recent expansion into "open source?"


    science is a religion

    dumbass (Score:1)
    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08, @01:57PM EST (#48)

    Why are you asking here?
    Re:embrace & extend - open source (Score:2)
    by SteveX (stevex@home.com) on Friday June 08, @03:14PM EST (#147)
    (User #5640 Info) http://food.dhs.org
    Have you ever looked at their developer materials? They are very good at documenting and encouraging you to use their extensions. Asking him if they plan to open up their proprietary extensions is kind of silly.

    Question: what about the BSD License (Score:5, Interesting)
    by Lechter on Friday June 08, @01:40PM EST (#27)
    (User #205925 Info)

    OK I can see why you mighn't like the GPL, since it doesn't do corporations any good, but why don't you try releasing software, or using software under the BSD license, much as Apple did with Mac OS X? Perhaps that would allow programmers to have a deeper understanding of the workings of your software.


    Re:Question: what about the BSD License (Score:2, Informative)
    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08, @02:39PM EST (#110)
    MS has already used BSD software. Most of the network command line utilities and much of the internal networking is based on BSD.

    Several people have run strings on the ftp command and it reveals the BSD copyright. You should work that into your question since it points out that MS has benefitd from OSS.
    Re:Question: what about the BSD License (Score:1, Informative)
    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08, @07:17PM EST (#232)
    Berkeley TCP/IP was a government funded project intended to benefit the computer industry as a whole by providing a standard protocol reference.

    Trying to associate the TCP/IP developers with the "OSS" types such as Alan Cox or Eric Raymond is silly. At no time did the Berkeley developers have any doubt that their work would be used by commercial companies - in fact that's exactly what they wanted. The lead programmer, Bill Joy, even went off and started his own "The Network Is The Computer" company and became very, very rich largely from his "OSS" work at Berkeley.
    Re:Question: what about the BSD License (Score:2)
    by Malcontent (malcontent@msgto.com) on Saturday June 09, @03:01AM EST (#301)
    (User #40834 Info)
    If all you say is true then why is MS badmouthing OSS. Looks like companies can make billions from OSS.

    Do onto others what has been done to you.

    Re:Question: what about the BSD License (Score:1)
    by Zico (ZicoKnows@hotmail.com) on Sunday June 10, @05:17AM EST (#349)
    (User #14255 Info)

    Microsoft didn't badmouth all open source efforts, and specifically said that the BSD license was just fine, because it doesn't impose nutty restrictions on developers. It was the GPL virus that they badmouthed.

    Oh, and if you think that the billions that Microsoft has made has anything whatsoever to do with their inclusion of BSD-derived finger and nslookup clients, you're even dumber than you usually sound.


    Cheers,
    ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

    Re:Question: what about the BSD License (Score:2)
    by Malcontent (malcontent@msgto.com) on Saturday June 09, @10:29PM EST (#345)
    (User #40834 Info)
    The OSS is a license spec. It says nothing about how something is developed only about how something can be distributed.

    Do onto others what has been done to you.

    Irony? (Score:2)
    by WombatControl on Friday June 08, @01:47PM EST (#36)
    (User #74685 Info) http://www.flarn.com/wombatcontrol/

    Does anyone else find it quite odd that Mundie is giving a speech at an Open Source conference? It seems to me that's like having Louis Farrakhan as the keynote speaker for a conference on Judiasm.

    Still, I suppose they'll get some good press out of it. Hopefully they'll be able to show the PHBs why putting up with a company that rapes you with forced upgrades isn't necessary or wise.


    Re:Irony? (Score:2)
    by ocbwilg on Friday June 08, @02:12PM EST (#71)
    (User #259828 Info)
    Well, that was my question too! How the hell do you let Craig "Opensource is evil and stifles innovation" Mundie to be the keynote speaker at an open source conference? Or more to the point, why would you want him to be the keybote speaker at an open source conference? Do you not know what Craig is going to say about open source? Is this not the world's largest troll?
    Re:Irony? (Score:2)
    by r_j_prahad on Friday June 08, @02:15PM EST (#81)
    (User #309298 Info)
    Does anyone else find it quite odd that Mundie is giving a speech at an Open Source conference? It seems to me that's like having Louis Farrakhan as the keynote speaker for a conference on Judiasm.

    ... or like having Ralph Nader as the guest of honor at the Corvair Society of America's national convention.

    Re:Irony? (Score:1)
    by Taos (rtp9709@ksu.edu) on Friday June 08, @03:07PM EST (#137)
    (User #12343 Info) http://www.ksu.edu/kstaterugby
    I saw a Nader speech from American University on C-Span one day and when they panned the audience, there was some kid wearing a corvair tshirt. I laughed for a good 5 minutes on that. Then I made a sandwich.

    Taos
    Re:Irony? (Score:1)
    by sabine on Friday June 08, @02:35PM EST (#104)
    (User #206851 Info)
    Well, he asked for "a dialog", supposedly...I can't decide if he's cocky or just REALLY dumb.

    They'll make mincemeat out of him.

    IMO, of course.

    ~sabine
    Re:Irony? (Score:1)
    by schon on Friday June 08, @02:53PM EST (#124)
    (User #31600 Info)
    Nahh.. more like having David Duke as keynote speaker at an NAACP meeting.
    "Slashdot Crackpot, and proud of it!"
    Re:Irony? (Score:1)
    by toopc on Friday June 08, @03:06PM EST (#135)
    (User #32927 Info)

    There is irony here, but not like you think.

    The irony is that Microsoft is able to use an Open Source conference to further their message. You guys should just go ahead and take some ads out in the NY Times for them and save yourselves the hassle.

    Whether you want to admit it or not, they have a good point on the GPL. The best you can hope for is to clarify that their point only relates to the GPL and not Open Source in general. Unfortunetly for you, the Open Source poster child, Linux, get's screwed regardless.

    Re:Irony? (Score:1)
    by On Lawn (onlawn@usa.SpshielD.net) on Friday June 08, @04:43PM EST (#200)
    (User #1073 Info) http://www.onlawn.net
    heh, Irony list..

    1) Microsoft does use Open Source yet they call it a cancer.
    explanation: Misunderstanding of what Open Source defines, however it is the same misunderstanding that most people have. Thank ESR. But even from RMS's comments one isn't too sure if Open Source is a subset of Free Software, or vice versa.

    2) Microsoft get their message out riding on Open Source waves.
    caveat: Open Source gets their message out riding on Microsoft's waves. This is a classic brawl that attracts much publicity and media for both sides. As with most debates, not one will win with a sound bite. Nor will anyone be able to trump with the name calling and self aggrandizing that goes on with Slashdot. In fact, it most likely going to be a cool, corporate version of a political debate. Plenty of light hearted laughter mingled with frontal assaults and slippery linguistic undermining.

    3) Microsoft has a good point about the GPL.
    explanation: A truely cunning "good point" is agreed to by both sides, yet interpreted very different by both sides. Their good point is one of those, and I'll go further in depth.

    "Using Open Source will make you have to release all your Intelectual property," they say. "Good point" some say, because to them use means "use the code". However on the other side, they see Open Source portrayed licking its perverbial lips, with a napkin around their neck and a fork and knife in both hands like Wile E. Coyote watching the road runner pass by. Use means the same thing as "Using Microsoft Office 2000, a tutorial for dummies" And this restriction is obsurd and unfair. This brings us to the last point of Irony...

    4) Microsoft wants freedom, the GPL is too restrictive.
    caveat: Freedom is gained through sharing or by taking it from others. In some metaphysical sence, one can twist freedom to mean the right to restrict others freedom. After all, freedom means ability to act, and that is an action. But as a recurcive programer knows, you don't survive long when you refer to yourself by destroying yourself.

    Conclusion:

    Now Microsoft has been guilty of many things in the past. So far their battles have been corporate, and we all know that in such a dogfight we expect to see some bloody combat. Some may even excuse them of their crimes for the nature of the conflict, their enemies were no more ethical than they were. But now they are picking on something more rooted in the freedoms that we desire for ourselves. The freedom to create our own lifestyle and the pursuit of our own happiness.

    They looked like they would do this for years, and now they are. And those who haven't learned the meaning of their freedom or its value will be like the one guy in the Matrix, seduced back to a world where freedom is a piece of wool being pulled over their eyes.

    So, no they do not have a good point, not through Open Source or other eyes.


    ~^~~^~^^~~^
    Understand first, post second...
    Re:Irony? (Score:1)
    by Master Bait (mbait@swnews.net) on Friday June 08, @04:42PM EST (#196)
    (User #115103 Info) http://swnews.net
    I think the whole purpose of his visit is to promote (in Micros**t Speak) SharedSource (tm)(r)(c).

    If they repeat the lie often enough, people will begin beLIEving them.


    blessings,
    Master Bait

    Closed source apps for Open Source OS's (Score:4, Interesting)
    by Lechter on Friday June 08, @01:49PM EST (#38)
    (User #205925 Info)

    Does Microsoft have any plans to release binary versions of some of their more popular office applications for Linux or other open operating systems?

    After all, apparently Microsoft makes the lion's share of its profits from applications rather than windows. I'm sure there's a decent-sided market for Office for Linux. I use Linux, and I'd certainly like to be able to use Word and Excell nativly - if nothing else then because their formats are the "defacto" standard these days.

    Currently Corel's WordPerfect is the (more or less) standard office product for the Linux world, and I sort of wonder if Microsoft would be willing to challange that dominance, and perhaps gain a (little) bit of good will from a community that it has otherwise sorely alienated (to say the least).


    Re:Closed source apps for Open Source OS's (Score:2)
    by powerlord (SPowerlordAM@worldnet.att.net) on Friday June 08, @02:15PM EST (#79)
    (User #28156 Info)
    While Closed source apps for Open Source OS's is a nice idea, and a viable buisness model, there is a proviso:

    It only works, if your product is worth someone paying good money for.

    In the case of MS, they definately make products that are considered the de-facto standard. You'd think this would encourage them to make it available on other platforms, however their dominance of the platform AND the app market ("Office Suites") translates into complete control of the industry.

    If they released Office for Linux (or BSD) then they wouldn't have the same "tightly integrated development relationship" with the OS developers. They would be forced to compete with others on a much more equal playing field. Plus, I'm not sure if even WINE could make Office compile on Linux, since so many of the "standard" DLLs are incorporated within the product (note that I'm not talking about running MS apps with the DLLs available, but rather compiling a Linux native version of the app).

    Lastly, they wouldn't be able to force the upgrade cycle as much, since you could always upgrade the OS, without necessarily upgrading the Office Suite, and vice-versa. That alone is reason it will probably never happen.

    "The next time you feel like downloading 'The Little Engine That Could' into a weapon of mass destruction.DONT!"
    Re:Closed source apps for Open Source OS's (Score:1)
    by ClosedSource on Friday June 08, @02:40PM EST (#112)
    (User #238333 Info)
    "If they released Office for Linux (or BSD) then they wouldn't have the same "tightly integrated development relationship" with the OS developers. They would be forced to compete with others on a much more equal playing field."

    Well, MS Office is the dominant office package on the Mac even though they don't make the operating system, so the "can't compete" argument doesn't hold up.

    How many Linux users would be willing to pay for MS Office if it were available? The answer to that question explains why MS hasn't made Office for Linux.
    Re:Closed source apps for Open Source OS's (Score:1)
    by malfunct on Friday June 08, @05:07PM EST (#204)
    (User #120790 Info) http://honors.montana.edu/~malfunct
    I think the reason that MS wouldn't write office for Linux is just that it would require a new code base (porting is not an option because like 1/2 the OS would need to be ported as well since there are so many COM dlls in the OS that are used by the windows apps not to mention that Office uses OLE to render many of the objects in a word file or other type of file). The revenue necessary to warrent a new code base has to be immense and with the mindset of Linux users/promoters being that software should be free(as in beer) would seem to not support a large revenue stream.

    "You can now flame me, I am full of love,"

    Re:Closed source apps for Open Source OS's (Score:2, Interesting)
    by Osty on Friday June 08, @02:38PM EST (#108)
    (User #16825 Info) http://www.daishar.com

    Currently Corel's WordPerfect is the (more or less) standard office product for the Linux world, and I sort of wonder if Microsoft would be willing to challange that dominance, and perhaps gain a (little) bit of good will from a community that it has otherwise sorely alienated (to say the least).

    I think that'd be a no-win situation for Microsoft. On the one hand, if Microsoft doesn't port Office (ie, the status quo), they're blamed for tightly integrating it into the OS, and using their OS muscle to move Office units (neither of which are true, as witnessed by the fact that Office runs natively on the Macintosh, and runs well, and sells well even though Microsoft doesn't own the Mac). On the other hand, if Microsoft does port Office, they'll get called down for "trying to expand their monopoly". Not to mention not being able to recoup their developement costs due to the fact that lots and lots of Linux users are of the mind that everything for Linux should be free (wouldn't surprise me if some thought the hardware should be free as well) (note that's free, not Free, which is another can of worms, and I'll leave that for some other time).

    That said, Microsoft's spokespeople have said more than a few times that whether or not they port applications to other platforms is a function of the demand for that application (coupled with profit potential, obviously, but that's why they're a business and not a non-profit organization). If you really want to see Office on Linux, start a letter-writing campaign. Rally everybody you possibly can, give them a well-written form letter expressing the desire to see Office on Linux and the willingness to pay reasonable prices, and bury Redmond under a deluge of requests to see Office/IE/Money/whatever on Linux. I'm sure you'll see some results.


    - Todd
    Re:Closed source apps for Open Source OS's (Score:1)
    by malfunct on Friday June 08, @05:10PM EST (#207)
    (User #120790 Info) http://honors.montana.edu/~malfunct
    Better yet, enclose $80 with every letter and demand a copy for linux. Money talks and if you get enough of it one place things happen.

    "You can now flame me, I am full of love,"

    Re:Closed source apps for Open Source OS's (Score:2)
    by Ayende Rahien on Saturday June 09, @03:31AM EST (#309)
    (User #309542 Info)
    Have you check Office prices?

    Better enclose 800$ :-D

    --

    Two witches watch two watches.
    Which witch watched which watch?
    Re:Closed source apps for Open Source OS's (Score:1)
    by lyberth (ily@vejlehs.dk) on Friday June 08, @02:52PM EST (#123)
    (User #319170 Info)
    Microsoft has given some rather confusing statements from time to time regarding the office suite for linux, but in the end Balmer stated that there was plans for releasing Office for other OSs but definetly not for Linux. I don't remember where i saw the statement, but i did see it.
    What other OSs he was talking about was not mentioned in the article.

    There isn't much like the scent of a fresh harddisk
    Re:Closed source apps for Open Source OS's (Score:1)
    by lynx_user_abroad on Friday June 08, @03:07PM EST (#136)
    (User #323975 Info)
    Don't get your hopes up.

    If you want to see how well a Linux version of Office 2000
    [B
    This is great news. (Score:4, Insightful)
    by the-banker (tribefan@nospam.cinci.rr.com) on Friday June 08, @01:50PM EST (#39)
    (User #169258 Info)
    Isn't this what we want? Engaging Mr. Mundie in a controlled debate of the issue definately favors Free Software, IMO. What better way to confront the FUD than face to face.

    I also believe that as a community we need to stay focused on what is important and avoid falling into the same headline chasing FUD tactics that Microsoft uses. Competing with MS on their terms is foolish. Remember when Clinton's '92 campaign reverberated 'It's the economy, stupid!'? We need to stick to that same sort of level, but substitute economy with technology and freedom.


    All the world's a stage? I must just have a cameo....
    Re:This is great news. (Score:2)
    by sheldon on Friday June 08, @10:44PM EST (#259)
    (User #2322 Info) http://www.sodablue.org
    Your absolutely right!

    "It's the economy stupid!"

    Microsoft fuels the economy, the GPL does not. :)

    -- Access to www.tuxedo.org has been denied by SurfControl.
    Re:This is great news. (Score:2)
    by SurfsUp on Friday June 08, @11:20PM EST (#266)
    (User #11523 Info)
    Microsoft fuels the economy, the GPL does not. :)

    In what way does Microsoft sucking $26 billion out of the pockets of comsumers and businesses each year fuel the economy? Given that the GPL allows these customers to get the same benefits in terms of productivity as Microsoft products do but without the costs, don't you think that fuels the econonmy? To put it more bluntly, imagine how 'fueled' the economy would be with an extra $26 billion in it doing real work instead of just building castles for Bill Gates. Oh, and how does rebooting twice a day fuel the economy?
    --
    Disallow the patenting of algorithms and business procedures the way it was before

    Re:This is great news. (Score:2)
    by sheldon on Saturday June 09, @03:39PM EST (#342)
    (User #2322 Info) http://www.sodablue.org
    Consider this example:

    Microsoft sells GM 40,000 copies of Windows 2000 for several million dollars.

    Microsoft in turn takes this money and gives salaries to many of it's employees.

    Employees take money home and decide to buy Chevy Tahoe trucks.

    It's a big cylical thing, the economy.

    I realize that's overly simplistic, but it ought to help you on the path to enlightenment. :)


    -- Access to www.tuxedo.org has been denied by SurfControl.
    Re:This is great news. (Score:2)
    by SurfsUp on Sunday June 10, @05:49AM EST (#350)
    (User #11523 Info)
    Microsoft sells GM 40,000 copies of Windows 2000 for several million dollars. Microsoft in turn takes this money and gives salaries to many of it's employees. Employees take money home and decide to buy Chevy Tahoe trucks.

    The same millions of dollars would have been spent better spent by companies operating efficiently, trying to do the best thing for their customers, instead of by Microsoft, which just spends it trying to defend its monopoly.

    It's a big cylical thing, the economy.

    Common misconception. Some people believe that an economy will expand by the mere act of having money circulate in it. Nope, sorry, if you believe that I have this here perpetual motion machine to sell you. An economy is fueled by efficiently carrying out the work that needs to be done and generates luxury as a dividend. The act of rebooting a computer does not fuel an economy, it drags it down, and paying a 10-times inflated price for the privilege drags it down further. That's money that Joe could have spent on a new truck ;-)

    Think of two countries, in all respects equal, but in one of them all businesses are monopolies, in the other, all businesses compete freely with each other. Both arrangements sound pretty good don't they? All the usual arguments we are used to hearing from you and other Microsoft employees apply to why monopoly-land should outperform competition-land, but guess what? History tells us that competition-land will win in the end. Yes, you know what I'm talking about, think about how America finally won the cold war.

    I realize that's overly simplistic, but it ought to help you on the path to enlightenment. :)

    Quit your job at microsoft and feel like a man again. :)
    --
    Disallow the patenting of algorithms and business procedures the way it was before

    Re:This is great news. (Score:2)
    by sheldon on Sunday June 10, @11:22AM EST (#358)
    (User #2322 Info) http://www.sodablue.org
    Ahh, but now you want to argue efficiency.

    What is more efficient, spending $1 million rolling your own software.

    Or buying it from someone else for $1,000.

    That's the problem with the Linux paradigm, it's a belief by some people that commercial software is evil and it is much better to write your own than succumb to their evilness.

    Again, the GPL does not cater towards efficiency, nor does it fuel the economic spending.

    -- Access to www.tuxedo.org has been denied by SurfControl.
    Re:This is great news. (Score:2)
    by SurfsUp on Monday June 11, @06:42AM EST (#362)
    (User #11523 Info)
    Ahh, but now you want to argue efficiency. What is more efficient, spending $1 million rolling your own software. Or buying it from someone else for $1,000.

    Getting it for free.

    That's the problem with the Linux paradigm, it's a belief by some people that commercial software is evil and it is much better to write your own than succumb to their evilness.

    That's the problem with Microsoft astroturfers, 1) tell a lie 2) draw several conclusions from their own lie. Again, the GPL does not cater towards efficiency, nor does it fuel the economic spending.

    See? I knew you were going to do that. Why do you bother, haven't you learned yet that every time you FUD the open source movement you just create an opportunity for one of us to get up on the soapbox and tell the truth. This always backfires - the more you do it, the sooner you are going extinct. So, see, your best strategy is to sit down and shut up. Heh, especially on slashdot, where the only person you will impress is your boss, and that's only if he doesn't read *this* comment.
    --
    Disallow the patenting of algorithms and business procedures the way it was before

    Re:This is great news. (Score:1)
    by samantha (samantha@isis.aurinia.com) on Saturday June 09, @12:10AM EST (#276)
    (User #68231 Info)
    No, this is NOT what we want. We want to bury closed source software under its own inefficiency. And most especially we do not want to embrace enemies of software freedom as if they have respectable opinions and we are lucky to have them address us in *our* conference.

    Do people really not get that this is not a step forward?

    What I'd ask (Score:3, Interesting)
    by Lumpish Scholar (psrchisholm@yahoo.com) on Friday June 08, @01:51PM EST (#41)
    (User #17107 Info)
    Mr. Mundy, you talked about how horrible it would be if software whose development was funded by the U.S. govenment was "Open Source" (presumably GPL'ed). Such software is always public domain, which means there are no restrictions on how Microsoft or anyone else can use it.

    Were you just being disingenuous, or did you actually have a point?

    (I'd have posted this to ora.com, but it wouldn't accept a request from behind a proxy server.)-:
    Re:What I'd ask (Score:1, Flamebait)
    by Delirium 21 on Friday June 08, @02:01PM EST (#55)
    (User #336429 Info) http://members.telocity.com/alexdiaz
    Well there are restrictions in the GPL for how Microsoft could use such software--they couldn't, for instance, incorporate the code into their own product code without releasing the source for the appropriate portions of that product. Some claim that this is one of the reasons for Microsoft's hostility towards GPL software--they can't "embrace and extend" it their way.

    Unix is a four-letter word.
    Re:What I'd ask (Score:1)
    by Delirium 21 on Friday June 08, @02:01PM EST (#56)
    (User #336429 Info) http://members.telocity.com/alexdiaz
    Well there are restrictions in the GPL for how Microsoft could use such software--they couldn't, for instance, incorporate the code into their own product code without releasing the source for the appropriate portions of that product.

    Some claim that this is one of the reasons for Microsoft's hostility towards GPL software--they can't "embrace and extend" it their way.

    Unix is a four-letter word.
    Re:What I'd ask (Score:2)
    by (void*) (voice@void.) on Friday June 08, @02:21PM EST (#87)
    (User #113680 Info)
    That which some claim is, in fact, true. Microsoft is wholly wiiling use and admit to using the BSD stack. This shows that they certainly will reuse code that they can legally reuse. But BSD code is free, just like the GPL is free. Then observe that they object to "open-source" pretending that it is GPL and hence "viral". In other words, they have no objection to re-using code that they can reuse, but object when they must share it back.


    Re:What I'd ask (Score:1)
    by Zico (ZicoKnows@hotmail.com) on Friday June 08, @03:05PM EST (#133)
    (User #14255 Info)

    Except that they don't use the BSD stack.


    Cheers,
    ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

    Re:What I'd ask (Score:2)
    by (void*) (voice@void.) on Friday June 08, @04:20PM EST (#189)
    (User #113680 Info)
    Oh yes, they do use the BSD TCP/IP stack. Why don't you try running "strings" on the Windows kernel?
    Re:What I'd ask (Score:2)
    by Malcontent (malcontent@msgto.com) on Saturday June 09, @03:33AM EST (#310)
    (User #40834 Info)
    Right. Because the people at microsoft are so absolutely honest (have you ever heard even one MS employee lie?) that they would never remove comments from code and they would always absolutely honor the wishes of people they took code from.

    Do onto others what has been done to you.

    Re:What I'd ask (Score:1)
    by Zico (ZicoKnows@hotmail.com) on Sunday June 10, @05:15AM EST (#348)
    (User #14255 Info)

    Damn, you guys are so clueless, it's hilarious. NT/Win2K's TCP/IP stack is multi-threaded (*BSD's isn't) and actually scales well with multiple processors (*BSD's doesn't, because as a result, it ends up putting a big lock around the entire stack). The *BSD folks might have fixed this problem by now, because the core developers admitted in the past that this is a problem. However, since they were discussing this as recently as just last year, they sure didn't have this capability before Windows did. But hey, you just keep believing that NT/Win2K uses the BSD stack if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. Just don't expect anyone to think that you have half a clue.


    Cheers,
    ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

    Re:What I'd ask (Score:2)
    by (void*) (voice@void.) on Friday June 08, @04:16PM EST (#188)
    (User #113680 Info)
    What rubbish speaketh you, Anonymous Coward.
    Open Source != Public Domain (Score:1)
    by Planesdragon on Friday June 08, @02:06PM EST (#63)
    (User #210349 Info)
    If I take a public Domain work (oh, let's say a work of Shakesphere) and make a derivitive work, I don't have to make my work public domain.

    If I were to take a GPL's copy of King's work, I would have to use the GPL.

    Or in other words, *you trade the ability to not use the GPL in your work when you utilize GPL code in your project!*
    Re:What I'd ask (Score:1)
    by matman on Friday June 08, @02:13PM EST (#74)
    (User #71405 Info)
    Stuff released under GPL is NOT public domain.
    Re:What I'd ask (Score:2)
    by Lumpish Scholar (psrchisholm@yahoo.com) on Friday June 08, @05:46PM EST (#218)
    (User #17107 Info)
    Stuff released under GPL is NOT public domain.

    Right; and stuff released into the public domain is not GPL (though derivatives can be).
    Questions (Score:4, Funny)
    by Violet Null on Friday June 08, @01:53PM EST (#43)
    (User #452694 Info)
    If the GPL is described as a "cancer", what malignant term does that leave to describe Microsoft's behavior? Microsoft bills itself as "software for the agile business". How does having the XP software force customers to call Microsoft when they change hardware contribute to agility? Similarly, how does having the XP software require the exact same CD that was used for installation be on hand for verification, applying service packs, etc. contribute to agility? Where do you get your drugs, and do you have any to share with the rest of the class? Seeing as how the linux faithful already view Bill Gates as the antichrist, do you have a particular character from Revelations that you would like to be viewed as?
    Re:Questions (Score:1)
    by EvilAlien on Friday June 08, @01:59PM EST (#51)
    (User #133134 Info) http://www.badmonkey.ca
    You see, GPL is a mere cancer on intellectual property, Microsoft is a malignant tumor which has metastastized, seriously compromising the survivability of the entire organism. Or is it the new organism?

    How come nobody even defends the right to life of tumors?
    -- Chaos, panic, & disorder - my work here is done --

    Re:Questions (Score:2)
    by SteveX (stevex@home.com) on Friday June 08, @03:17PM EST (#150)
    (User #5640 Info) http://food.dhs.org
    You don't need to have the original CD around to apply service packs, etc. Copy the source CD to your hard drive and install from that, or update the registry afterwards to point to wherever you've put the original files.

    Re:Questions (Score:1)
    by ocie (ocie@paracel.com) on Friday June 08, @07:17PM EST (#231)
    (User #6659 Info)
    The company just launched their new embedded project and units are now on their way from the manufacturing center in Singapore. The software is free and comes with source code. The software is not upset or consumed with low self-esteem because of its free-ness. Always stable and open to inspection.

    -- Is this NEWS for NERDS? Is this STUFF that MATTERS?
    Re:Questions (Score:2)
    by Malcontent (malcontent@msgto.com) on Saturday June 09, @03:28AM EST (#308)
    (User #40834 Info)
    From revelation chapter 13

    16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
    17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
    18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

    Does this sound like hailstorm to you?

    Do onto others what has been done to you.

    Craig Mundie (Score:5, Funny)
    by Dancin_Santa (Dancin_Santa@hotmail.com) on Friday June 08, @01:54PM EST (#45)
    (User #265275 Info)
    1) Do you pronounce "Monday" and "Mundie" the same, or do you emphasize the "day" in "Monday"?

    2) Before you came to Microsoft, what special talents did you possess?

    3) If I were to grep the Windows source code, how many "We'd be totally fucked if our customers knew we did this" comments would I find?

    4) Are you wearing a hairpiece?

    5) What's your /. ID, or do you troll anonymously?

    6) When Bill or Steve makes a joke, does everyone laugh? Is it a fearful laughter?

    7) How much Linux code is actually in Windows? Haha, just joking. Windows would be a lot stabler if it had any.

    8) If you were a Hostess snack cake, which one would you be and why?

    9) Why are manhole covers round?

    10) Have you thought about suing tobacco companies and making a quick billion or two?

    Dancin Santa
    Re:Craig Mundie (Score:1)
    by merky1 on Friday June 08, @02:11PM EST (#68)
    (User #83978 Info)

    9) Why are manhole covers round?

    It's the only shape that won't fall through the hole.


    --WooooHoooo--
    Re:Craig Mundie (Score:1)
    by Dancin_Santa (Dancin_Santa@hotmail.com) on Friday June 08, @02:12PM EST (#70)
    (User #265275 Info)
    Equilateral triangular lids won't fall into holes either.

    Why aren't manhole covers triangular?

    Dancin Santa
    Re:Craig Mundie (Score:1)
    by merky1 on Friday June 08, @02:18PM EST (#83)
    (User #83978 Info)
    Still could fall in. granted, it would take some actually effort, but could be done.
    --WooooHoooo--
    Re:Craig Mundie (Score:1)
    by PD (pdrap@startrekmail.com) on Friday June 08, @02:37PM EST (#107)
    (User #9577 Info) http://slashdot.org
    round covers use a minimum of steel
    Re:Craig Mundie (Score:1)
    by schon on Friday June 08, @03:04PM EST (#131)
    (User #31600 Info)
    An equilateral triangle 2' on a side uses less material than a circle 2' in diameter.

    Yeah, but there's no way you'd get a 250 pound drainage worker to fit through it :o)
    "Slashdot Crackpot, and proud of it!"
    Re:Craig Mundie (Score:1)
    by The Troll Catcher on Friday June 08, @02:12PM EST (#72)
    (User #220464 Info)
    No fair answering the question for him!

    ;)
    Re:Craig Mundie (Score:2)
    by Fjord on Friday June 08, @02:40PM EST (#111)
    (User #99230 Info)
    That's not entirely true. For example, a 2'x2' square cannot fall into a 2' diameter circular hole. Why do people always thing the lid has to be the same shape/size as the hole? Even manhole covers are slightly larger than the holes (though they are the same shape).

    It is the cheapest shape with that property.
    -"Preferences|Exclude Stories from the Homepage|Authors|Jon Katz" worked for me

    Re:Craig Mundie (Score:2)
    by Fjord on Friday June 08, @02:50PM EST (#120)
    (User #99230 Info)
    Actually, even the last statement isn't true, as the cover doesn't necessarily have to be the same thikness, so it could be just as cheap to make the square cover. This depends on whether or not manhole covers are so weighty so that they can stand the cars on top of them, or so they are harder for a lay person to pop off. If it's the first, then it probably is the economics of it.

    Otherwise, the round cover is arguably more useful because you can open it in any direction (after rotating the pivot point), and it's marginally easier to close (you don't have to get position and rotation correct). But it's probably more of a case of "round hole, round cover" logic that isn't actually a good reason why, just the reason why.
    -"Preferences|Exclude Stories from the Homepage|Authors|Jon Katz" worked for me

    Re:Craig Mundie (Score:1)
    by pod on Friday June 08, @03:51PM EST (#174)
    (User #1103 Info) http://www.domainofdarkness.com/
    Not only that, but there's no way a round manhole cover will fall _into_ the hole by accident (or with a little help, hehe).

    --
    There should be a moderation option for '-1 Wrong'.

    Re:Craig Mundie (Score:1)
    by Chagrin on Friday June 08, @04:56PM EST (#202)
    (User #128939 Info)
    Ahh..... (is enlightened)

    * This user has donated to the EFF and written his congressman.

    Re:Craig Mundie (Score:1)
    by MochaMan on Friday June 08, @07:03PM EST (#228)
    (User #30021 Info)
    Actually, a square cover whose edges are each 2^0.5 feet long will fit the hole (assuming there's a lip) and not fall in, though it won't necessarily cover the whole hole -- that wasn't a precondition though since the statement was that a round cover was the only shape that won't fall in. This is undeniably cheaper than a circular cover, but I suppose there's always the annoyance of public safety.
    Re:Craig Mundie (Score:1)
    by sydb (michaelatwd21dotcodotukdotspamproof) on Saturday June 09, @07:50AM EST (#325)
    (User #176695 Info)
    Two sticks, just over 2' long, tied together in the middle to form a cross, would be even cheaper.

    But completely pointless. (unless you whittled the ends of the sticks).
    --

    Your hesitating... you're thinking of moving on.. don't.

    MODERATE THIS UP. You know it's right.

    Re:Craig Mundie (Score:1)
    by Fjord on Monday June 18, @10:27AM EST (#366)
    (User #99230 Info)
    It wasn't that it won't fall in. It's that it can't fall in. the 2x2 can't fall into the 2' dm circle. Any rectangle with one side less than 2' can possiblly fall in.
    -"Preferences|Exclude Stories from the Homepage|Authors|Jon Katz" worked for me
    Re:Craig Mundie (Score:1)
    by tanpiover2 (wdf@fnord.umb.edu) on Friday June 08, @03:23PM EST (#154)
    (User #249666 Info) http://cgi1.cs.umb.edu/~wdf/
    Because manholes are round.

    Duh.

    s/fnord/cs/ to email me

    Re:Craig Mundie (Score:2)
    by e_lehman on Friday June 08, @05:50PM EST (#219)
    (User #143896 Info)

    9) Why are manhole covers round?

    It's the only shape that won't fall through the hole.

    Surprisingly, given how commonplace the question is, this answer is wrong!

    There are shapes other than the circle that can't fall through a slightly-smaller hole of the same shape. Here is how to construct one of them. Take three equidistant points. (Like the corners of an equilateral triangle.) Place the needle of a compass on one point and run the pencil from the second point to the the third. Repeat for the other two points. The result is an equilateral triangle with bowed-out sides.

    Not only can this shape function as a delightful manhole cover, but also you can roll a platform on top of logs with this cross section without it bouncing up and down-- just as if the logs had a circular cross section.

    (Martin Gardner wrote about this in one of his books.)


    Re:Craig Mundie (Score:1)
    by Tony-A on Saturday June 09, @10:05AM EST (#329)
    (User #29931 Info)
    Constant diameter does not imply round.
    I think the best one I've seen is a wagon with square wheels, rolling smoothly on a roadbed of matching round logs. This was in some TV show with eliptical and other strange shaped gears. Fascinating.
    Re:Craig Mundie (Score:2)
    by Mike Schiraldi (mgs21@columbia.edu) on Friday June 08, @03:38PM EST (#164)
    (User #18296 Info) http://cumb.org
    11) What is the code to get 30 lives in Contra?

    --
    [ Don't confuse stderr with stdout. They hate that. ]

    Re:Craig Mundie (Score:1)
    by discogravy (abuse@127.0.0.1 (username@hotmail)) on Saturday June 09, @06:08AM EST (#321)
    (User #455376 Info)
    How much Linux code is actually in Windows? Haha, just joking. Windows would be a lot stabler if it had any

    actually, all you really need is to change SET_BUGS=1 into SET_BUGS=0 and all versions of Win will outperform all other OSes. the bitch is getting the source...oh wait, it's not.
    --
    Slashdot: When News Breaks, We Give You The Pieces

    working for MS (Score:1)
    by Juln (juln @ netscape . net) on Saturday June 09, @01:21PM EST (#333)
    (User #41313 Info)
    Hi,
    the only excuse to be working for Microsoft is sabotage.
    You could be putting your everlasting soul in JEOPARDY.
    Juln
    Mr Mundie (Score:5, Insightful)
    by 4of12 on Friday June 08, @01:59PM EST (#52)
    (User #97621 Info)

    Sir:

    Much controversy has surrounded Microsoft's Shared Source initiative, particularly given the differences between the licensing terms that apply to MS Shared Source and the licensing terms that apply according to the GNU Public License.

    Hypothetically, suppose I am a programmer with MS Shared Source in front of me on one hand, and a different GPL source in front of me on the other hand.

    Suppose, further, that in both cases I have a brilliant idea, an idea that will substantially increase the feature set, reduce bugs, and increase performance.

    For both application programs, each under its own license, describe exactly

    1. the costs (money, time, opportunity)
    2. the benefits (same)
    that would pertain to each of three important parties
    1. myself, the programmer
    2. Microsoft corporation
    3. everyone else (public users, other companies, other programmers, etc.)
    both in the short term and in the long term if I were to improve the code for the respective application program.

    I would most appreciate a ranking of those costs and benefits.


    Re:Mr Mundie (Score:1)
    by rafelbev on Saturday June 09, @06:02AM EST (#319)
    (User #194458 Info) http://127.0.0.1
    You could have avoided to blatently copy this post from the article!! It was posted beforehand. Some people can't manage to suck up more for some karma these days. Oh yeah, and once we are at it, you should have at least "embraced and extended" by addind something of your own from the post you stole. Microsoft at least extend... or wait, do they ?
    Dodge this !! --Trinity, The Matrix
    Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
    by Salsaman (gabriel@DIE.SPAMMERS.DIE.pixle.demon.co.uk) on Friday June 08, @02:04PM EST (#60)
    (User #141471 Info)
    Microsoft is always talking about 'innovation' in their products. Can you name five M$ innovations which were not copied or stolen from rival products ?


    Think $GLOBALLY, act /usr/local/ly !!

    Re:Innovation (Score:1)
    by Karn on Friday June 08, @02:28PM EST (#95)
    (User #172441 Info)
    It really depends on how you define 'innovate'..


    Dictionary.com's definition is:
    Innovate: To begin or introduce (something new) for or as if for the first time.

    We at Microsoft have redefined innovate:
    imitate^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Innovate: 1. To use or follow as a model.

    So, as you can see we have innovated many things..

    The GUI..
    OLE..
    The Web Browser..
    The Start Button

    So, there you have it.
    Re:Innovation (Score:1)
    by csbruce on Friday June 08, @03:11PM EST (#143)
    (User #39509 Info) http://www.pobox.com/~csbruce/
    innovate, vb.: 1. To appropriate third-party technology through purchase, immitation, or theft and to integrate it into a de-facto, monopoly-position product. 2. To increase in size or complexity but not in utility; to reduce compatibility or interoperability. 3. To lock out competitors or to lock in users. 4. To charge more money; to increase prices or costs. 5. To acquire profits from investments in other companies but not from direct product or service sales. 6. To stifle or manipulate a free market; to extend monopoly powers into new markets. 7. To evade liability for wrong doings; to get off. 8. To purchase legislation, legistators, legislatures, or chiefs of state. 9. To mediate all transactions in a global economy; to embezzle; to co-opt power (coup d'état). Cf. innovate, English usage (antonym).
    Innovation and Slashdot (Score:1)
    by Zico (ZicoKnows@hotmail.com) on Friday June 08, @02:52PM EST (#122)
    (User #14255 Info)

    Smart tags, wheel/optical mouse, modularizing the web browser engine as just another system component, intelligent menus or whatever they're called, SOAP/UDDI. Well, that was easy.

    Of course, now people will whine that those aren't really innovations since they were based on previous work. Well, too bad, everything is based on previous work, and if anyone should know that, it's the typical Slashdot user.


    Cheers,
    ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

    Re:Innovation and Slashdot (Score:1)
    by Phork (qazwsx(atdt)mac.com) on Friday June 08, @03:02PM EST (#129)
    (User #74706 Info) http://www.phork.cx
    sun made optical mice long before microsoft did. Having the webbrowser as an OS component isnt always a good thing

    yes.
    Re:Innovation and Slashdot (Score:1)
    by Zico (ZicoKnows@hotmail.com) on Friday June 08, @03:09PM EST (#142)
    (User #14255 Info)
    Please, don't even bring up that piece of crap mouse that you couldn't use anywhere except on a special mousepad. It doesn't even deserve to be mentioned on the same page as the real optical mice that companies make now.

    Listen: The web browser engine as just another component instead of having a monolithic web browser is a good thing 99.5% of the time. You can thank Microsoft for that.

    Cheers,
    ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

    Re:Innovation and Slashdot (Score:1)
    by Joools on Friday June 08, @05:31PM EST (#214)
    (User #25192 Info) http://www.cro-magnon.com/

    Listen: The web browser engine as just another component instead of having a monolithic web browser is a good thing 99.5% of the time. You can thank Microsoft for that.


    Actually, you can thank Apple for that. Remember cyberdog?


    Yeah, Microsoft (arguably) did it better, but Apple did it first. And we're talking about innovation here...

    Re:Innovation and Slashdot (Score:1)
    by Zico (ZicoKnows@hotmail.com) on Friday June 08, @07:21PM EST (#235)
    (User #14255 Info)

    Wow, I'd totally forgotten about CyberDog and OpenDoc. Of course, it's pretty straightforward that Microsoft would've componentized IE, because that's what they do with their software, but you're right. CyberDog was out there first by a pretty good margin, too. Damn, making me feel all old and stuff. ;)

    Since we're talkin' Macs here, I'll withdraw browser componentization and substitute it with ClearType for LCD displays, which Apple fans like to think of as taken from 70s Apple technology (mainly because of some web page by Steve Gibson, professional blowhard). Of course it isn't, which is why Apple wasn't doing anything similar when Microsoft came out with this.


    Cheers,
    ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

    Re:Innovation and Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
    by Surak (surak@<TINLC>.thepentagon.com) on Friday June 08, @03:34PM EST (#163)
    (User #18578 Info) http://tuxedo.darktech.org
    Having the webbrowser as an OS component isnt always a good thing

    Not a good thing? KHTML is cool, IMHO. It allows many KDE programs to view Web pages right inside their program. This is good.

    OF course, if you run Linux you don't have to have KDE, and therefore you don't have to have KHTML. I can't say the same thing for Windows. If I have Windows, I'm pretty much stuck with Internet Exploiter.
     

    This post brought to you by Konqueror and the letter K.
    Re:Innovation and Slashdot (Score:2)
    by sugarescent (nfroyd@usa.net) on Friday June 08, @04:07PM EST (#183)
    (User #30924 Info) http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~froydnj/

    Not a good thing? KHTML is cool, IMHO. It allows many KDE programs to view Web pages right inside their program. This is good.

    Yes, it is good. But you missed the whole point of the earlier statement. KHTML is not a part of the OS any more than X or Qt or KDE itself. Now, you can argue that one can uninstall IE and therefore it's not a part of the OS, but that's not a debate to have here (and IIRC, such a demonstration didn't work out too well during the anti-trust trial).

    And I'm posting this from Mozilla on Windows, not IE, so I do have a choice there.

    -sugarescent


    Re:Innovation and Slashdot (Score:1)
    by Phork (qazwsx(atdt)mac.com) on Friday June 08, @11:23PM EST (#268)
    (User #74706 Info) http://www.phork.cx
    i said it isnt always a good thing, sometimes it is, i personally like khtml, but there is no reason i would want it on my webserver. Also, i use konq in gnme, so when im not using any kde stuff, i kill it, i open keep stuff running when i am using it.
    yes.
    Re:Innovation and Slashdot (Score:2)
    by Surak (surak@<TINLC>.thepentagon.com) on Friday June 08, @03:25PM EST (#156)
    (User #18578 Info) http://tuxedo.darktech.org
    Smart tags, wheel/optical mouse, modularizing the web browser engine as just another system component, intelligent menus or whatever they're called, SOAP/UDDI. Well, that was easy.

    Smart tags--what about XML/XSLT?

    Wheel/optical mouse: I know a guy who came up with the wheel mouse back in late 80s and I beleive he even filed a patent application (I don't know if it was awarded or not...maybe patents.ibm.com could come up with the answer to that?). He wanted to sue Microsoft, but couldn't get the money for a lawyer

    Optical mouse: I remember optical mice as early as about 1986 .... they required a special reflective mouse pad and were much more expensive than traditional mice but they were there!!!

    Intelligent menus are also nothing new.

    I don't know what SOAP/UDDI is, so I won't answer that one. :)


    This post brought to you by Konqueror and the letter K.
    Re:Innovation and Slashdot (Score:2)
    by Salsaman (gabriel@DIE.SPAMMERS.DIE.pixle.demon.co.uk) on Friday June 08, @06:20PM EST (#222)
    (User #141471 Info)
    SOAP is a way of calling remote procedures using XML. Microsoft weren't the first with this - I believe Userland's XML/RPC predates it somewhat.

    UDDI is Universal Description, Discovery and Integration. It uses XML to create 'a kind of yellow pages for businesses', and it's actually derived from a collaboration between Ariba, IBM, Microsoft, and 33 other companies.

    So there !


    Think $GLOBALLY, act /usr/local/ly !!

    Re:Innovation and Slashdot (Score:2)
    by Malcontent (malcontent@msgto.com) on Saturday June 09, @03:05AM EST (#302)
    (User #40834 Info)
    SOAP is a collaboration between Dave Winer (userland), MS, IBM and I think Sun. Figures a ms astro turfer would credit MS solely though. That Zico is a hoot.

    Do onto others what has been done to you.

    Re:Innovation and Slashdot (Score:2)
    by (void*) (voice@void.) on Friday June 08, @05:10PM EST (#206)
    (User #113680 Info)
    Well, so you know that it is all based on previous work, but you claim that it is innovative.

    Are you saying that that "whining" makes it all wrong but you saying it (i.e. not whining - by your own perceptions) is thus true.

    You would sound more sensible if you were not so self-contradictory.

    Re:Innovation and Slashdot (Score:1)
    by Zico (ZicoKnows@hotmail.com) on Friday June 08, @07:40PM EST (#241)
    (User #14255 Info)

    I think you have a misguided view of innovation. It's not just coming up with something completely brand new and never based on anything in the past, which is about as rare as anything out there. It also involves applying existing things in new ways. Take Apple. They didn't invent the mouse and windowing interface, but they were innovating in the mid 80s with the Mac. Other companies had done the all-in-one computer before, but Apple made a huge impact with the approach they took when they came out with the iMac.


    Cheers,
    ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

    Re:Innovation and Slashdot (Score:2)
    by IntlHarvester (vcs2600 yahoo) on Saturday June 09, @02:00AM EST (#295)
    (User #11985 Info)
    Well, Apple didn't invent the WIMP itself. But they did invent pull-down menus, the file/folder file system viewer, and many other things which made the GUI workable.

    And above all, they sold it for a couple thousand bucks -- Most of Microsoft's innovations fall into that category too: Existing ideas refined for mass consumption and priced accordingly.

    Which is why MS's defense of "innovation" is so silly. Historically, their vision was "A personal computer on every desk and in every home" -- meaning they were commodizing technology for the everyman, ergo they were the cheapest vendor (and with the exception of open source and Office, they still are). This did them quite well until they felt they needed some intellectual argument against the government. I'd much rather have them point at the installed base of PCs in 2001 versus 1981 and their original mission statement than this BS innovation PR crap.

    But then again, when I hear the word innovation, I reach for my pistol.
    --
    Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    Re:Innovation and Slashdot (Score:2)
    by Malcontent (malcontent@msgto.com) on Saturday June 09, @03:08AM EST (#303)
    (User #40834 Info)
    NONE of the things you stated were invented by MS no matter how you define the term invent or innovate. Are you seriously claiming that the optical mouse was invented by MS? That SOAP was an MS protocol? Get real willya.

    Do onto others what has been done to you.

    Re:Innovation and Slashdot (Score:2)
    by (void*) (voice@void.) on Sunday June 10, @01:56PM EST (#360)
    (User #113680 Info)
    No, a truly misguided view of innovation would be try to twist the definition of the very word to fit whatever it is that MS is doing.

    A true defender of MS would actually learn to choose the arguments that they can win. They can do this many ways, but the area of "innovation" is not one of them.

    Re:Innovation (Score:2)
    by Mike Schiraldi (mgs21@columbia.edu) on Friday June 08, @08:48PM EST (#249)
    (User #18296 Info) http://cumb.org
    20. WebTV.

    Microsoft bought that.

    --
    [ Don't confuse stderr with stdout. They hate that. ]

    boot loaders (Score:2, Interesting)
    by lyapunov (charles@upharley.com) on Friday June 08, @02:05PM EST (#62)
    (User #241045 Info)
    Why do Microsoft's operating systems do not attempt to cooperate with any other bootloaders, FreeBSD's, LILO, etc... when all of the other boot loaders go to great pains to make sure that all of the information for any operating system is left intact.

    It is not impossible to recover from installing a Window's after other operating systems, but it is inconvenient.

    This should be will within Microsoft's ability to do, so why hasn't it been done? And I will not accept any cheesy arguments like ours is better than theirs or the others won't work. They work well, and we all know it.
    cnet article (Score:3, Informative)
    by ghack on Friday June 08, @02:10PM EST (#66)
    (User #454608 Info)
    cnet has an article about the same subject. according to them, Red Hat's Michael Tiemann is going to be in a debate w/Craig Mundie... http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6218716.html? tag=st.lx.1491268.today.1003-200-6218716
    This Is Not A /. Interview! (Score:5, Informative)
    by update() on Friday June 08, @02:11PM EST (#69)
    (User #217397 Info)
    All you people submitting questions -- this isn't a Slashdot interview! Ask them here!

    Every time there's a headline here with the words "interview" or "ask" people start frantically posting questions. I confess I've been guilty of that a couple of times myself... ;-)

    (Original subject: First "This Is Not A /. Interview!" Post! Apparently that trips the lameness filter.)

    Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
    Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature. - Helen Keller

    Re:This Is Not A /. Interview! (Score:2)
    by _xeno_ on Friday June 08, @03:25PM EST (#155)
    (User #155264 Info)
    Unfortunately, the link you gave won't work since it uses the Referer: header to determine where the comments came from. Or at least, it did for me - the page claims this will be "fixed soon," so if it works for you, they've fixed it!

    Until then, either set your HTTP client to send Referer: http://oreilly.com/news/mundie_0601. html or simply go here first (the originating page) and follow the link that reads "Post your questions to Craig Mundie here, or read what others have to say!" that's on the very bottom of the page.

    --
    Sig Removed Due To Utter Lameness

    Shh! (Score:3, Funny)
    by RebornData (beto-no@spam-yall.org) on Friday June 08, @04:15PM EST (#186)
    (User #25811 Info)
    What do you think you're doing? It can only be a good thing of the knee-jerk, mindless flames / trolls masquerading as questions get posted here, rather than in the other forum where they might actually be submitted. Do we really want the questions of people too clueless even to read the /. blurb before posting to go there?
    "Shared Source" and the NT native API? (Score:4, Insightful)
    by Philbert Desenex (eballen1@qwest.net) on Friday June 08, @02:12PM EST (#73)
    (User #219355 Info)

    Windows NT, Windows 2000 and presumably Windows XP had a "native" API that Microsoft never bothered to document publicly. Microsoft has used this on various occasions to aid favored 3rd party vendors (Exececutive Software received access to the native API for "Diskeeper") and to hobble despised 3rd party vendors (Netscape's web server was much slower than IIS, because IIS used the native API, and Netscape used Win32).

    Once Microsoft lets people view NT/2000/XP operating system code, the "native" API will be out of the bag. Microsoft won't have semi-secret "native" APIs to barter with.

    How much of a force *against* the "shared source" approach was the existance of the "native" API?


    Re:"Shared Source" and the NT native API? (Score:1)
    by SPOC (gepardio at gmx dot de) on Friday June 08, @03:16PM EST (#149)
    (User #455611 Info)
    I don't think the API will get out of the bag.

    As I remember Microsoft will show source only to "selected customers". I don't believe such "special" people will discuss "native" API with their competitors.

    "ich bin drin !"
    Re:"Shared Source" and the NT native API? (Score:1)
    by fors (willbuck1@spammeikillyou.geek.com) on Saturday June 09, @04:09AM EST (#312)
    (User #310930 Info)
    Not only is shared sourc only shown to selected companies but they are only showing about 90% of the code. 90% of the windows code can hide a lot of APIs.
    Re:"Shared Source" and the NT native API? (Score:2)
    by sconeu (pseudo-hacker formerly at ucsc dot edu) on Friday June 08, @05:13PM EST (#208)
    (User #64226 Info)
    Dude,

    See "Windows NT/2000 Native API Reference", by Gary Nebbett.



    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    Re:"Shared Source" and the NT native API? (Score:1)
    by Philbert Desenex (eballen1@qwest.net) on Wednesday June 13, @05:12PM EST (#365)
    (User #219355 Info)

    I'm only replying to this one to correct a blatant falsehood, to get the correction into the slashdot record.

    Anonymous Coward wrote: Executive Software write part of the Windows NT/2000/XP OS, so naturally they use the NT APIs for certain things below the Win32 level, but for applications developers, there's no advantage to using the native NT API.

    It's just stupid to say that. Emulation layers like Win32 always add time to any system call. The Unix world has lots of experience with Mach, an OS similar in some aspects to NT. Emulations of Unix, Linux, VMS or Sprite on top of Mach always cost an unacceptable amount of time. From Sprite on Mach: "Unfortunately, the Sprite server runs the Andrew benchmark at only 38% of the speed of native Sprite."

    From Linux on the OSF Mach3 microkernel: "Often, as much as a 40% performance cost has been reported."

    The reasons an application programmer might want to use the "native" API amount to two very important things:

    1. Speed. See the two references above.
    2. Function. Some things aren't exported from the "native" API to Win32. The simplest example is that the "native" API can do the equivalent of a Unix fork() system call. Win32 cannot. There are other examples of functionality in NT "native", but not in Win32.

    There's a huge advantage to using the "native" API, even for a mere application programmer. That's what I loathe the most about you MS-shills: you think you know better than I do what I want to do. It's the very height of arrogance to say that any programmer shouldn't use a particular API that offers more functionality, faster.


    Governments (Score:4, Interesting)
    by AirLace on Friday June 08, @02:15PM EST (#80)
    (User #86148 Info)
    You said in one of your previous speeches that Microsoft is opposed to governments releasing source code under the GNU GPL Free Software license. I beg to differ.

    Surely if the government has been funded by the taxpayer to develop this software, then it should be placed under a license that requires that it remains free to the funders? If the source code is placed under a less restrictive license such as the BSD license where the code can be integrated into proprietary products such as Microsoft Windows, then the customer will be forced to pay the vendor of the proprietary software for something they have in fact already paid for when they paid their tax to the government. Do you think that this secondary "Microsoft tax" is fair on customers?
    MOD THIS UP! (Score:1)
    by tempest303 (jensknutson@YsApHaOmO.com) on Friday June 08, @05:40PM EST (#216)
    (User #259600 Info) http://www.upevil.net
    Mod this one up! This argument is *right on*.
    Re:Governments (Score:2)
    by tswinzig (teddy_swinzig@hotmail.com) on Friday June 08, @06:55PM EST (#227)
    (User #210999 Info)
    If the source code is placed under a less restrictive license such as the BSD license where the code can be integrated into proprietary products such as Microsoft Windows, then the customer will be forced to pay the vendor of the proprietary software for something they have in fact already paid for when they paid their tax to the government.

    How many times do we have to go over this? Your taxes paid for the original software to be written, not whatever Microsoft writes. If you want their program over the free version that is still available from the government, then obviously Microsoft has ADDED VALUE to the software ... and thus you should pay for it.

    "I will bet you any money that while you're watching a quiet one, a noisy one will fucking kill you!" --Carlin
    Re:Governments (Score:2)
    by SurfsUp on Friday June 08, @11:31PM EST (#270)
    (User #11523 Info)
    "If the source code is placed under a less restrictive license such as the BSD license where the code can be integrated into proprietary products such as Microsoft Windows, then the customer will be forced to pay the vendor of the proprietary software for something they have in fact already paid for when they paid their tax to the government."

    How many times do we have to go over this?

    Until you astroturfers understand it.

    Your taxes paid for the original software to be written, not whatever Microsoft writes. If you want their program over the free version that is still available from the government, then obviously Microsoft has ADDED VALUE to the software ... and thus you should pay for it.

    You *should* only pay you for the added value but Microsoft will make you pay for the whole thing, including the part you already paid for. Moreover, Microsoft will attempt to "add value" in such a way that you are forced to use only their modified version. In fact, such "added value" may consist of nothing more than a proprietary lock-in. What kind of value is that?

    The original poster was correct.
    --
    Disallow the patenting of algorithms and business procedures the way it was before

    Re:Governments (Score:2)
    by Pinball Wizard (josheverist@yahoo.com) on Friday June 08, @08:50PM EST (#250)
    (User #161942 Info) http://www.page1book.com/images/dilbertbase.jpg
    The GPL has its place, but I don't think it belongs in publicly funded software development.

    With the GPL, you are ensuring that no profit will be made from taxpayer funded software. Generally research projects(not just software) are intended to stimulate the economy and private enterprise. With a BSD licence, anyone can use the code and make money with it. Not only big players, but you or I if we want to start a software company. That makes better sense for the economy than GPL'ing it does. And the code base itself still remains free even after software companies take it and modify it.

    As far as I know, the vast majority of govt. and uni research has been released under a BSD style licence. Change that to the GPL, and you ensure that nobody gets to use this publicly funded software in a commercial product. IMO, a publicly funded software project should belong to everyone without restriction, and I hope things remain that way.

    Besides, the GPL is intended for the developer(read: not the disinterested taxpayer) to decide that they don't want other people using their code. Because the GPL is centered around the developer, rather than the end-user, it is inappropriate for publicly funded software.

    Miranda's murder was never solved because the suspect invoked his right to remain silent. Now that's ironic.

    Re:Governments (Score:2)
    by SurfsUp on Friday June 08, @11:36PM EST (#272)
    (User #11523 Info)
    With the GPL, you are ensuring that no profit will be made from taxpayer funded software.

    No, you are only ensuring that no profit will be made through secret modifications to taxpayer funded software.
    --
    Disallow the patenting of algorithms and business procedures the way it was before

    Serious Question for Mundie (Score:1, Flamebait)
    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 08, @02:18PM EST (#82)
    Do you get sick of listening to linux bitches raking you over the coals when they themselves can't seem to run a lemonade stand profitably?

    Do you get pissed off at the fact that these very same linux bitches who never let up actually use Microsoft products most of the time and actually use IE to pen half of their anti-MS rants?


    Nice Marketing Idea (Score:2)
    by powerlord (SPowerlordAM@worldnet.att.net) on Friday June 08, @02:19PM EST (#84)
    (User #28156 Info)
    Whatever else your feelings, the potential of debate and discusion from those Keynote speeches and that panel should be enough to draw a decent size crowd. That should sell conferance tickets/media/etc.

    Should make O'reily a few dollars (not that I wouldn't go if I could ::grin::)

    "The next time you feel like downloading 'The Little Engine That Could' into a weapon of mass destruction.DONT!"
    Is Microsoft gonna GPL Windows? (Score:3, Interesting)
    by SpinyNorman (spiny_norman@mad.scientist.com) on Friday June 08, @02:19PM EST (#85)
    (User #33776 Info)
    Mr. Mundie, given that Microsoft is so fearful of the GPL yet has the option of maintaining it's own "shared source" business model, does this mean that:

    a) Microsoft is considering GPLing Windows, but is worried about the outcome

    OR

    b) Microsoft realizes it is being out-competed by GPL'd software

    P.S. Which swear word does Bill Gates most commonly use when referring to Linux?

    Microsoft's anti-GPL stance (Score:2, Insightful)
    by wrinkledshirt on Friday June 08, @02:22PM EST (#88)
    (User #228541 Info)
    Considering that Microsoft has no plans to implement GPLed code into its own products, nor does it plan on sharing its source code with the general public in the same wide and unrestricted (from the point of view of obtaining and viewing) manner as GPLed code, how can MS justify its recent information campaign clarifying its stance on the GPL? MS's opinion on the GPL is as irrelevent as Coke's opinion on orange juice.

    Furthermore, the only parallel that MS products and GPLed applications have in common is from the point of view of end-use, NOT further development on the core product, and this does not involve the GPL at all. On the surface it appears that MS is using the GPL, which is a distinguishing feature of one of its major competitors, the Linux Operating System, as a focal point for criticism to gain an edge in the general public's eye, despite the fact that the general public will probably have no need to explore those areas of the competing product which will actually involve the GPL. Given this, once more, how is this information campaign relevent, and how is it ethical?

    Re:Offtopic (Score:1)
    by wrinkledshirt on Friday June 08, @02:44PM EST (#117)
    (User #228541 Info)
    Argh. Didn't see that one coming. Don't suppose an editor can change that to tomato juice or something.

    Unless coca-cola owns that as well...

    Goddamn it.

    Let's be nice and freak him out. (Score:2)
    by Medievalist on Friday June 08, @02:28PM EST (#93)
    (User #16032 Info)
    It looks to me (from some of the memos brought into evidence at the DOJ .vs. MicroSoft anti-trust suit) like Microsoft's employees are generally crude and impolite, as well as being fond of violent metaphors ("let's cut off their air supply" and "we're going to kill [insert competitor name here]"). Not that it's unusual for computer geeks to have poor social skills ;^).
        Mundie will probably be ready and willing to deal with the types of questions people are posting here (yes, I understand you're just venting, the real questions are on the O'Reilly site) so let's use a little akido on him and be nice.
        He'll come in all combative and we'll show the world how reasonable and well-spoken we are. You can't buy publicity like that. Well, OK, you can, but it's out of Tim O'Reilly's price range.
    --Charlie

    It's more effective to fight fire with water. Yes, I know this sounds weird coming from me, but consider it strategy.

    FOIA (Score:1)
    by $hotgun on Friday June 08, @02:34PM EST (#102)
    (User #449276 Info)
    Ask him which liscense is more like the FOIA.

    Background: Politicians passed the Freedom of Information Act, after a LOT of pressure from news organizations, because people wanted to know what their government, which they are paying for, is up to. The government doesn't know who will request what information, but the general consensus is that if anything bad is happening, someone will request the right information and expose it.

    Open Source code provides for the same thing to happen with computer programs. Closed source is like a closed government in that people we don't really know or trust are able to do things that we would rather they not with impunity and on our dime.

    Again with open source, not everyone will look at the source code, in fact, very few will, but the code is open to review by whoever would request it. If there is something underhanded going on, someone who has not signed a NDA will discover it and proclaim what is found from the mountain tops.

    Mr. Mundie, how can the public be assured that Microsoft is not doing underhanded things if no one is allowed to review the code except for Microsoft employees and those hand picked by Microsoft.

    Re:FOIA (Score:1)
    by $hotgun on Monday June 11, @08:52AM EST (#363)
    (User #449276 Info)
    Excuse me?! Are you saying that you don't have the right to inspect the work that a contractor does on your house? Are you saying that he should be able to do whatever he damn well pleases inside your walls, and as long as the sheetrock is smooth and flat when he's finished you have know right to know what he did? Are you saying that you don't have the right to have the tires that Ford put on your SUV inspected by and expert? Are you saying that you have no right to have your food inspected by a third party? Do you have a right to get a used car inspected by a expert third party before deciding to buy it?

    I'll agree with you. You do not have a constitutional right to any of these things. But any company that expected to survive in a competive marketplace would not dare stand in the way of any of it. The question I proferred would point out to the public in general that software vendors have been getting away with something that most other industries only dream of, foisting untested/uninspected product onto the market, and that there is an alternative that is more like the rest of the marketplace. There is no FOIA to guarantee that your contractor does good work, but there is a lot of market power that provides the same effect. I'd like it pointed out that closed software is not covered by laws or market effects, and that PHBs should fear this.

    what we really want to know (Score:3, Funny)
    by Magumbo (asynchronous@mail.com) on Friday June 08, @02:36PM EST (#106)
    (User #414471 Info)
    Mr. Mundie,

    Did Microsoft purchase O'Reilly and Associates? If so, will they continue to use *TeX or switch to doing layouts using Word? Also, please leave the 18th century woodcuts alone, we like their distinctive look. Thank you.

    --
    I think I am, therefore, I am. I think.

    Re:what we really want to know (Score:1)
    by Zenki on Friday June 08, @10:17PM EST (#253)
    (User #31868 Info)
    Minor point. O'Reilly uses groff to do their layout. Nifty, eh? :)
    Why give Mundie a forum to troll on? (Score:2)
    by Andy Tai (atai@atai.org) on Friday June 08, @02:51PM EST (#121)
    (User #1884 Info) http://www.atai.org/softwarewar.gif
    What is O'Reilly thinking? Why should people attending an Open Source conference spend time listen to Microsoft? Get Open Source developers to be educated by Microsoft, or the other way around?

    Everything that needs to be said has been said. Can there be anything new from Microsoft?

    O'Reilly may as well get Bill Gates in there to re-issue his Open Letter to Hobbyists, to the Open Source hobbyists.

    Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!

    For all the Space Ghost Fans (Score:3, Funny)
    by krmt on Friday June 08, @02:57PM EST (#127)
    (User #91422 Info)
    So Mr. Mundie...

    ... what are your super powers?

    "I may not have morals, but I have standards."
    Re:For all the Space Ghost Fans (Score:1)
    by chasec (/dev/null) on Friday June 08, @06:19PM EST (#221)
    (User #157393 Info) http://covello.cjb.net/
    Mr. Mundie, do you require oxygen?
    Here's my question: (Score:1)
    by 10Ghz on Friday June 08, @03:01PM EST (#128)
    (User #453478 Info)

    I posted this on the O'reilly site (I really would like to hear an answer to this one!)

    "Recent remark by Microsoft managers (among others, yourself and Steve Ballmer)regarding Linux, GPL and Open Source have been full of errors. Regarding that fact, which of the two suggestions is correct:

    1. The managers of Microsoft are extremely un-informed when it comes to their "biggest threat" (as said by Steve Ballmer). In which case we can seriously question their expertise regarding matters conserning the software industry.

    2. Or that the managers of Microsoft have deliberatly lied and spread misinformation regarding their competitors (which of course is completely un-ethical)."


    Hypothetical Example for Comparison (Score:3, Interesting)
    by Ranolf on Friday June 08, @03:32PM EST (#159)
    (User #255412 Info)
    Microsoft appears to believe that the GNU Public License (GPL) presents some kind of danger to "intellectual property" rights, and that in particular Microsoft is trying to warn other companies [and not just software companies] of the danger.

    With the exception of software companies, what danger does the use of the GPL really pose to most businesses, given that for them software is means to end and not the thing which defines them as a company? And how does Microsoft shared source offer GPL like benefits without the "IP Liability"?

    I would like to offer a simple but specific example to clarify the context of the question: a small widget manufacturer has a production line, which he wishes to automate to stamp the logo of his customer on each widget. He has a database of customers, and a program developed by a large software company which controls the stamping press. He wants to connect the database and the stamping press program to change the stamp pattern according to his purchase orders in the database. This is a very simple adjustment. He cannot however modify the program, because the company which developed it has gone out of business, and he has no access to the source code. GPL software exists which he could use, but at the price of [potentially] sharing the that change with his competitors, but Microsoft also has a stamp press controller which he could buy, and get a Shared Source license for, enabling him to make the change. The question is, why should he choose MS and Shared Source over the GPL code? Is this ability really the core competency of his business, or merely a tool to help him in his real compentency which is making the best widgets? Presumably, if all that distinguished this manufacturer was his ability to stamp logos, how would the MS shared source license accomplish his goal of obscurity? Would MS not be privy to incorporate changes he made, and sell it at later date to his competitors or to make it a feature of MS StampPress? Would the low cost and low overhead of using GPL outweigh his concerns about IP competition? Furthermore, even supposing his competitors did end up using the "custom" code, does the fact that he can now benefit from any improvements THEY make change his decision - and can he benefit from changes other's make if he goes with MS Shared Source?

    "Perfect numbers like perfect men are rare." -Descartes
    Who can you educate? (Score:1)
    by bryanbrunton on Friday June 08, @03:42PM EST (#169)
    (User #262081 Info) http://www.merchantempires.net
    Question number 1: If you can't educate your own CEO, who can you educate?

    Recent comments by Steve Ballmer, MS CEO, have made it very apparent that he has either (1) little or no understanding of the GPL/Open Source community, or (2) his is a big fat LIAR. What exactly is the point of the Microsoft Shared Source campaign, if leaders of Microsoft fail to grasp the basics of the issues at hand?

    Question number 2: How does it feel to be a Shill?

    If your Shared Source argument and position is, in fact, a farce, a marketing ploy, a pile of bald faced lies, good old fashioned FUD, how does this make you feel as individual and your own personal worth as a human being. From reading your resume, you seemed to have had a one point in time an geniune interest in technology. You seem to be nothing more than a stuffed shirt spokesman who mindlessly utters whatever FUD that Ballmer and company tell you to.

    Question number 3: Are the limited credibility resources of Microsoft better spent elsewhere?

    If Microsoft wants to embrace open standards and be accepted in the broader (non-desktop) computing market, then why is it wasting its credibility in putting out so much baseless FUD as the Shared Source/anti-Open Source campaign?

    Play Merchant Empires. TradeWars meets Python and PHP.
    boycott Mundie (Score:1)
    by gluteus on Friday June 08, @03:55PM EST (#176)
    (User #307087 Info)
    The most effective way to deal with this little publicity stunt (Daniel in the lion's den?) is to not show up, period. Microsoft is doing this just for PR. Mundie in an empty room would be a more powerful statement than any question.
    One little request (Score:4, Interesting)
    by babbage (st90300@jaguar1.usouthal.edu) on Friday June 08, @03:58PM EST (#178)
    (User #61057 Info) http://www.cis.usouthal.edu/~cdevers/
    WILL YOU PEOPLE PLEASE STOP USING THE WORD INNOVATE?!?!

    Every time Ballmer opens his damn mouth, every other word seems to be "innovate". The more he says it, the less I believe it. If he was so busy innovating, where does he find the time to draw attention to it so much?

    It reminds me of so many things, none flattering.

    • It reminds me of the movie "Princess Bride", in which the Spaniard quizzically points out the the Sicilian "you keep using that word -- I don't think it means what you think it means...".
    • It also reminds me of the movie "What About Bob", in which Bill Murray tries babie steps therapy: "Baby steps gettin' out of the chair, baby steps walking across the room, baby steps opening up the door, baby steps walkin' through the door, baby steps closin' the door..." ad nauseam.
    • Closer to home, it reminds me of Philip Morris' recent PR campaign, in which they make sure that the audience knows how many millions they're spending on public service campaigns. What they don't mention in those ads is that they're spending about ten times more money on the ad campaign than on the actual charitable services that they claim to put so much emphasis on. What's more important to them? Actually helping out, or giving the appearance of helping out, such that they might throw off some of the lawsuits against them? I know I'm suspicious.

    And so it is with Microsoft's "innovation" campaign. It just seems like you're more "laterally" innovative than anything else. You embrace open source, kinda, but in a way that carefully distances you from the whole "open" part of the equation, thus defeating the whole point.

    For a huge, powerful company, there are a lot of ways to go about things, as you well know. For the /. crowd, true innovation could nicely start with really & honestly opening up your source code, but I doubt you'll ever relinquish that much control over what you have worked so hard for, and I won't begrudge you for that. And I do realize that there's a marketing role to be played, and that the perception of being an innovator can be just as useful -- and much cheaper -- than actually being one. Maybe there is something to be said for putting all your efforts into such "lateral" innovations -- getting people to think you're pushing the frontiers, and giving the public enough (profitable!) little shiny chrome frills and vaporware for the claim to be at least plausible, while not actually providing anything that is truly, fundamentally new.

    But could I suggest trying to meet halfway here? Is it not the case that Microsoft earns more from support contracts than actual product licenses? (I don't know, this is just my impression, but I'd be interested in more concrete information). Do you *really* think people can be talked into going to a subscription model, benefits be damned, if it's going to mean having to pay a software bill every month? I think there's a lot to be said for it (I like Windows Update, Mac OSX's Software Update, and Debian's apt-get features, and these are all embryonic versions of the same idea), but I also think that people will strongly resist the idea of having to pay a recurring fee for something that they were allowed to use outright & in perpetuity in the past.

    If you're going to plow ahead with this "innovation", can we at least ask for someting in return? I think I could actually deal with having to subscribe to a .NET system that allowed me to look at & modify the code I was receiving. Allowing others to share & modify it as well would be even better -- that's why they call it open & free software -- but if you at least agreed to publicize what it is that you're trying to get people to do, you might encounter a bit less resistance than you're begging for now. As it is, you're just singling out this particular demographic of clued up, tech savvy devlopers and saying we want nothing to do with your or your freaky hippie ways. The resulting "yeah well fuck you too" should come as little surprise. Maybe a truce can be reached? I'd be happy to see it, but the ball is in your court...


    DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL

    Re:One little request (Score:2)
    by babbage (st90300@jaguar1.usouthal.edu) on Friday June 08, @05:35PM EST (#215)
    (User #61057 Info) http://www.cis.usouthal.edu/~cdevers/
    Really? I can't remember now, but for year's I've been remembering the line as if it were spoken in the Inigo's voice. Hrm... here we go, IMDB to the rescue:
    [Vizzini has just cut the rope The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing up]

    Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE!

    Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    In any case, I'm gonna be quoting that movie to myself all weekend now. Too bad I don't have a copy of it.

    Prince Mundie: Surrender!

    Slashdot: You mean you wish to surrender to me? Very well, I accept.

    Heh heh heh...


    DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL

    Not interested really.. (Score:2)
    by abelsson (henrik@S.P.A.M.abelsson.com) on Friday June 08, @04:08PM EST (#184)
    (User #21706 Info) http://abelsson.com
    Frankly I'm not all that interested in what Mr. Mundie or anyone else at Microsoft does. I'm going to keep on using Linux when it's the appropriate tool for the job and keep on coding on my humble pet projects. Nothing what Microsoft or anyone else does changes that for me. Do i care if linux has a 5% or a 25% market share? Not really.. Free software has existed for a long time, and will continue to exist long after microsoft is gone. I use windows occationally - for the tasks it's better at than linux. I'm not a religious free software fanatic, i just use it because it's better.

    A large part of why free software is "better" is because i *know* i can fix things that annoy me. Case point: i thought XMMs playlist handling sucked for a playlist of a few thousand songs, so i implemented playlist filtering (start typing in the playlist area and it filters out all songs that doesnt match). The XMMS maintainers weren't interested in accepting the patch, because it broke the keyboard shortcuts in the playlist. That's fine with me, they wrote it and can accept or reject patches as they please - but i never use those shortcuts so i didn't care about breaking them.

    End result: I'm running a version of XMMS that works the way *I* want, and the maintainers are distributing a version they like. *That* is the power of free software. (and if you happen to be interested in the playlist filtering patch, just mail me)

    -henrik

    Wrong. (Score:1)
    by Tony-A on Saturday June 09, @02:14PM EST (#335)
    (User #29931 Info)
    That's the power of free software. Libre.

    Only one out of one hundred million users of a particular piece of software would have any interest in making it do what she wanted it to do? Very precisely stated numbers should have some degree of plausibility.

    If noone care about the source code, then why does Microsoft want to keep its code to itself? Or is Microsoft "noone"?

    So you think he's got a better product? I don't, and I doubt that he does either. What he has is a worse product that is worse where he does not care, and better where he does care.

    This is a very small example of what IBM is promoting and Microsoft is fighting. Power to the users!

    my Q: shill for stupidity (Score:1)
    by MuthaFukka on Friday June 08, @04:13PM EST (#185)
    (User #458599 Info)
    your comments are so laughable that i'd like to ask the following:
    1 - you either believe what you're saying
    or
    2 - you have a good ol' time dumbing down ideas and take great pride in selling to complete idiots

    so
    1 - are you that stupid
    or
    2 - are you that much of a shill to stupidity?

    followup...
    have you ever wet yourself from laughing too hard?
    My question (Score:1)
    by rohar on Friday June 08, @04:37PM EST (#195)
    (User #253766 Info)
    I posted this on the O'Reilly site. What do you guys think about this point?

    Mr. Mundie, If you released the source code to Office, you would probably get at least the basic functionality ported to other OS's... for free. You would also get a huge amount of free QA. I would like to have Office available for Linux, and would be willing to work on porting it on my own time, and I would imagine I am not the only person that feels that way.

    IMO there are no great innovations in Office that aren't available in other suites, so I don't think there is really all that much to lose on Microsoft's part. Office for Mac cannot possibly change the total sales of Microsoft OS's very much. Office for Linux wouldn't have a very significant impact either, unless it turns out that Linux as a desktop OS matures to be a better OS than MS Windows, and the market makes a choice to use it.

    If Open Source is such a detriment to innovation, there is no way Linux could ever become the desktop OS of choice over MS Windows, so all you would be doing is expanding your Office user base, with no expense.


    Whatcha doooo with those rollin' papers?
    Make doooooobieees?
      - Chris Farley

    OK, here's a question I'd really like to ask (Score:2)
    by Chris Johnson (chrisj@airwindows.com) on Friday June 08, @04:42PM EST (#197)
    (User #580 Info) http://www.airwindows.com
    When large groups of Microsoft employees at pep rallies chant, "Microsoft, kill them!", who is 'them'? Is there a defined 'them' that, once killed, will make this attitude unnecessary, or does 'them' expand with Microsoft's own growth?
    Re:OK, here's a question I'd really like to ask (Score:1)
    by Dancin_Santa (Dancin_Santa@hotmail.com) on Saturday June 09, @01:22AM EST (#289)
    (User #265275 Info)
    Lotus
    Borland
    WordPerfect (Borland, I guess)
    Netscape
    Linux

    I'd wager that "them" expands as priorities shift.

    Didn't someone over at MSFT once say (paraphrased) "We only want a fair amount of marketshare. We believe that 100% is fair"?

    Dancin Santa
    Their customers (Score:1)
    by Tony-A on Saturday June 09, @03:32PM EST (#341)
    (User #29931 Info)
    of course.
    Question: When will MSFT open source its old code? (Score:1)
    by WillSeattle (alfred.e.neumann@whitehouse.gov) on Friday June 08, @05:25PM EST (#213)
    (User #239206 Info) http://www.shinyredbutton.whitehouse.gov
    Since MSFT has announced it no longer will support Win95 and other prior code bases, when will MSFT provide the source code under an open source license, so that the legitimate "purchased for life" software users can maintain their own code?

    [yeah, I know, but OReilly won't let me post since I'm behind a firewall ...]


    Will in Seattle - are we there yet?
    It's only news when Hemos posts (Score:1)
    by Black Jack Hyde on Friday June 08, @07:32PM EST (#240)
    (User #2374 Info)
    I submitted this on Tuesday and had it rejected. Three days later it's posted by Hemos. I'm sorry, but that's just plain wrong. Give credit where it's due. This is the sort of action one expects from our dear friends in Redmond; isn't it?

    Jack

    One question (Score:2)
    by Pinball Wizard (josheverist@yahoo.com) on Friday June 08, @08:28PM EST (#247)
    (User #161942 Info) http://www.page1book.com/images/dilbertbase.jpg
    Dear Mr. Mundie

    Given that 95% of the questions posted here and on Oreilly.com are uneducated and highly biased flamebait, given that no matter how intelligently you answer your questions to the open-source community you will be spat on and tarred and feathered like the enemy you are to these people, I have just one question?

    Why bother?

    Miranda's murder was never solved because the suspect invoked his right to remain silent. Now that's ironic.

    The "success" of proprietary software model (Score:2)
    by Andy Tai (atai@atai.org) on Friday June 08, @11:36PM EST (#271)
    (User #1884 Info) http://www.atai.org/softwarewar.gif
    The "success" of proprietary software business model

    Question for Mundie,

    You claim that the proprietary software business model is a successful business model that creates innovation and wealth. If that's the case, how can you explain that there are no viable competitors to Microsoft in the major software categories, i.e., office suites and operating systems, that follow the same business model? How come the number one threat to Microsoft, as state by the Microsoft CEO, is Linux, a freely distributed piece of software developed by non-profit community volunteers? How can the main beneficiary of this business model be just one company, Microsoft?

    Don't you think this business model imposes significant cost in society, which concentrates wealth in a few people, i.e., Bill Gates? How can this business model be successful if only few, not many, commercial enterprises enjoy its fruits?

    Isn't the proprietary software business model cancerous to the well-being of our society?

    Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!

    so much for O'Reilly (Score:1)
    by samantha (samantha@isis.aurinia.com) on Saturday June 09, @12:07AM EST (#274)
    (User #68231 Info)
    I cannot believe this is happening. First O'Reilly embraces .NET. Now Craig Mundie, that lying utter ass of an Open Source opponent, is giving the keynote at the Open Source Conference???

    Goodbye O'Reiley. You won't see me sanctioning this farce by attending this conference. Nor will I condone such fundamental hypocrisy by EVER buying anything you have a hand in again.

    You almost were cool for a little while. But now you show your true colors. This is a GROSS INSULT to the Open Source community.


    Re:so much for O'Reilly (Score:2)
    by Chris Johnson (chrisj@airwindows.com) on Saturday June 09, @01:20AM EST (#288)
    (User #580 Info) http://www.airwindows.com
    Not so fast- we already know that clown gets heavy coverage everytime he says anything. Maybe the idea is for the heavy coverage to include stuff like "Mundie was greeted with a barrage of boos and catcalls, and when he completed his keynote he was met with stony silence- and then a pie in the face, and the room erupted with laughter".

    At the very least, it means being able to have instant rebuttal to whatever he says, instead of having to wait a few days :)

    And most of all- how many times can you get a Microsoft guy to cause 'open source' to be mentioned in the news? Apparently quite a few times... apparently he can be made to keep those words in the news day after day as Microsoft's sketchy reputation continues to slooooowly erode...

    Video please (Score:2)
    by geoffeg (geoffeg@nospam.sloth.org) on Saturday June 09, @12:11AM EST (#277)
    (User #15786 Info) http://www.sloth.org
    I hope someone videotapes or broadcasts this thing (realvideo please) so we can all enjoy the event! Hopefully oreilly will do it themselfs!

    Geoff
    A serious question or two on innovation (Score:1)
    by Hari_Seldon on Saturday June 09, @03:27AM EST (#307)
    (User #13869 Info)
    1. When the people of Microsoft claimed that the GPL prevented innovation, what did they mean? Since everything is required by the GPL to be open and available for public scrutny to make a product better, then where is the stifling?

    2. How does Microsoft foster innovation?

    Thanks, and cheers
    O'Reilly is a hypocrite (Score:1)
    by Galactic-Geek2000 on Wednesday June 20, @09:13AM EST (#367)
    (User #322789 Info) http://www.Geeks4Free.com
    Tim O'Reilly is a hypocrite. He could make all the O'Reilly books freely downloadable in a PDF format. When that happens, he will have any right to talk about open source.

    Galactic Geek
    * * * Free programmers? Why not? http://www.Geeks4Free.com * * *

    Re:I got a couple questions for him... (Score:1, Offtopic)
    by itp (itp at ximian dot com) on Friday June 08, @02:01PM EST (#54)
    (User #6424 Info)
    This is funny?

    Whatever.

    --
    Ian Peters
    itp at ximian dot com
    Re:My question to Mr. Mundie and Mr. Oreilly (Score:1)
    by daveuserland on Friday June 08, @02:21PM EST (#86)
    (User #315086 Info)

    Right on. Get rid of Mundie and instead have a session on how to do the open version of HailStorm.
    Re:My question to Mr. Mundie and Mr. Oreilly (Score:2)
    by Zigg (matt@zigg.com?subject=[SLASHDOT]) on Friday June 08, @02:25PM EST (#90)
    (User #64962 Info)

    And I just want to say -- why not?

    One need not love the GPL or Linux to appreciate and advocate open source or free software.


    "If you continue running Windows, your system may become unstable." - Windows 95 BSOD
    Re:I got a couple questions for him... (Score:1)
    by 10Ghz on Friday June 08, @03:26PM EST (#157)
    (User #453478 Info)

    I know it's a foreign concept to Linux companies, but see, Microsoft actually has money to pay their employees. VA Linux might soon be reduced to paying their employees with sexual favors

    You are missing the point. Open Source developers don't do it for the money, they do it because they like it ;)


    Re:I got a couple questions for him... (Score:1)
    by 10Ghz on Friday June 08, @06:31PM EST (#224)
    (User #453478 Info)
    Well, I guess some people don't get a joke even when it hits them in the head. Aww, bummer, maybe my sense of humor is just too complex/weird. damn, it's 2.40am in here, maybe I'm just not thinking straight.... I guess.... I don't know... Have to go to bed... zzzzzz
    Re:I got a couple questions for him... (Score:1)
    by QuantumG (qg@biodome.org) on Friday June 08, @03:32PM EST (#160)
    (User #50515 Info) http://biodome.org/~qg/
    you couldn't pay me enough.

    I think there's a place for closed source software, it's just not at my place.

    Re:I got a couple questions for him... (Score:1)
    by QuantumG (qg@biodome.org) on Saturday June 09, @12:10AM EST (#275)
    (User #50515 Info) http://biodome.org/~qg/
    well they did offer to rodger me up the ass but, unlike your Mom, I kindly refused.

    I think there's a place for closed source software, it's just not at my place.

    Re:The question we all want to ask (admit it)... (Score:1)
    by wrinkledshirt on Friday June 08, @04:23PM EST (#190)
    (User #228541 Info)
    Sheesh, looks like someone else needs a laxative as well.

    As for the linux advocacy FAQ, I read it a long time ago back when I was a regular on the advocacy newsgroup. It applied then as much as it applies now. There's no sense trying to appeal to someone's better nature when they don't have one, so might as well toss out some gladiatorial dramatics for the crowd's pleasure. At least some amongst them have a sense of humour.

    oh... (Score:1)
    by Juln (juln @ netscape . net) on Saturday June 09, @01:25PM EST (#334)
    (User #41313 Info)
    Huh? I thought it was their $20,000,000,000 in cash and ruthless marketing.
    Juln
     
     
      What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2004 OSDN.
    [ home | awards | contribute story | older articles | OSDN | advertise | self serve ad system | about | terms of service | privacy | faq | rss ]