Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Microsoft Calls for Truce With GPL and Linux? 464

Posted by Zonk
from the dogs-and-cats-you-know-the-drill dept.
An anonymous reader writes to mention an eWeek article discussing Microsoft's efforts to reach out to the open source community. The company is hoping to find a common ground with softare released under the GPL, so that OSS and Microsoft products can interoperate. From the article: "The goal, from both sides, is to meet customer needs, he said, adding, 'This is just the more mature view of the way the world is evolving, and we want to make sure that if customers are choosing Linux or other open-source-based products that we have ways of interoperating and working effectively with that.'" A related article mentions Windows server Expert Jeremy Moskowitzs' call for a truce between the Linux and Windows communities.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Calls for Truce With GPL and Linux?

Comments Filter:
  • by Teach (29386) * <graham@grahammitch e l l . c om> on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @12:37PM (#15524954) Homepage

    A new progression:

    1. first they ignore you
    2. then they laugh at you
    3. then they fight you
    4. then they 'call for a truce'?
    5. ???
    6. then you win, or Profit! or something

    Got to give it to Microsoft for not going down easy, at least.

    • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @12:40PM (#15524986)
      This is the way Microsoft fights.

      Look for proprietary Microsoft "extensions" in the near future. All for the sake of "user friendly" and "customer needs".
      • Microsoft offering an olive branch reminds me a lot of the cease fire right before Tet Offensive.
      • by walt-sjc (145127) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @01:28PM (#15525564)
        When MS stops doing stupid shit like requiring a license for Sender-ID, THEN we know they are serious.

        The onus is on Microsoft's side to change - not on the GPL's side. Talk is not change.

        Why did I bring up Sender-ID? Because it's a prime example of how non-GPL and GPL applications interact, without even getting into compiling and linking issues.
        • by kripkenstein (913150) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @03:06PM (#15526658) Homepage
          I'll be prepared to believe they are turning a new leaf when they release Office for Linux.

          Not before.
    • by $1uck (710826) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @12:42PM (#15525002)
      I alway thought the ??? in 5 was they partner with you and then 6 is they steal your work/ideas/customers and 7 would be you die.
      Or at least thats how it usualy seems to play out.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      5. "It's a trick, get an axe!"
    • Were it not for this 'calling for a truce', I might see it like that as well.

      However, we all know MS wouldn't give up like that.
      If they're calling for a truce, it's because they need more time to prepare the big guns.

    • by narrowhouse (1949) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @01:11PM (#15525337) Homepage
      Personally I think that is fine, they can profit from working with Open Source/Free Software. As soon as Bill and Steve make a public statement saying that they welcome their GPL overlords we can put this all behind us.
    • start opening your formats and protocols, dammit... I'm sick tired of following the internet standards in my programs to see that they won't work with Microsoft Software. An example: The Microsoft "Web Folders", supposedly compatible with webdav, didn't work when connecting to an apache webdav directory. Days of research thrown into the garbage.
      • What problems did you have with WebDAV and Windows? I've done only a little testing but it seemed to work ok for me. The only trouble I ran into was Windows XP's implementation, which rewrites WebDAV URL's (http://host/path/) into UNC paths (\\host\path\). As documented in the subversion book [red-bean.com], this can be worked around by specifying the port number in the URL e.g http://host:80/path/, or https://host:443/path/
    • the "community" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by johnMG (648562) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @01:21PM (#15525445)
      From the article:
      > It's time for the Windows and Linux communities to drop the religious war and [snip]

      There _is_ no "Windows community". It's just a giant company and a lot of customers.

      > [snip] until the two communities put aside the whole "religion" issue, said Jeremy
      > Moskowitz, a consultant and authority on Windows 2000/2003 Server, Active Directory
      > and SMS [snip]

      {sigh} There's no "religion issue". There's free software users who write a lot of
      code that they want to remain free. It's their work -- and they want it to stay free.
      If you don't like the terms, don't use the software. That's it. There's no religion
      there. Now, maybe the Microsoft corporation has a "religious issue" -- like, maybe
      it's their religion to dominate the software industry and they don't like there
      being anyone else supplying software to the world...

      Anyhow, this article seems to be mostly shilling for MS. The author tries to trick
      the reader into believing the author's presuppositions and also relies pretty heavily
      on quotes from this Moskowitz "authority".

      > "At the end of the day, both Windows and Linux bring things that are good, and we
      > can all get along and we should look at how we can leverage the strength of each
      > to the benefit of the other," he said.

      Bleh. What garbage. The free software community wants to get along just fine --
      they're _giving_ away their work for goodness' sake.

      • > There's no "religion issue".

        Gonna have to disagree with your police work there:

        http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/religion/ [dina.kvl.dk]

        Our Church of Emacs is very open minded, we discuss both how best to worship our Saviour among the True Believers, and also welcome preachers of false religions like The Church of Bill Gates, Discordia, and vi to our church, where we can test their silly misconceptions against out pure and strong faith . Most of the information in this page is from these discussions. Please don't misu
    • First the FUD: "One of the things I have learned is that engineers who work on commercial software really can't work on open source on GPL and engineers who work on GPL can't work on commercial software. You really have to separate the two," he said.

      That's a load of crap, unless Microsoft is the one not letting GPL programmers also work on commercial software. Has Microsoft ever heard of Red Hat, or are they really that out of touch with what is going on in their industry?

      Ahh, and then the trick: "A commerc
  • by klynch (980181)
    Maybe now they will truly release the Media Transport Protocol [wikipedia.org]. Currently they have released the protocol but forbid it in the use of FOSS. But I doubt that will ever happen.
    • That's how XPS will work too. It's a patent encumbered "open" standard. Everyone who asks gets a patent license, but a developer can't transfer their license to end users. So it can't be used.

      Oh, and the fact that its a pointless re-invention of an already well-supported, trul open standard (PostScript), using an entirely unsuitable XML schema, is neither here nor there.
    • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @01:06PM (#15525288)
      I think you're on the right track there. Since Microsoft is talking like this, how about a list of all the items that they could deliver.

      #1. Media transport protocol - specs so it can be implemented in a GPL-friendly app.

      #2. Whatever it takes to allow Linux-based workstations to authenticate via Active Directory - again, GPL-friendly.

      #3. Specs so NTFS disks can be read/write under Linux (GPL-friendly).

      What else? If they want to talk about "cooperation", then we should be able to give them a list of items that they can start "cooperating" on.
  • by mpapet (761907) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @12:40PM (#15524989) Homepage
    This is the tactic to "cooperate" with OSS as long as the money flows into MS's coffers.

    This strategy would suck the economic oxygen out of OSS.
    • I think this page [shootagainamusements.com] pretty well covers the whole story.

    • by jd (1658) <imipak&yahoo,com> on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @01:05PM (#15525276) Homepage Journal
      ...but probably not the first to think it. Microsoft's alliances have an interesting history, the most recent being cooperation with anti-virus corporations, followed by the sudden acquisition of one, followed by "accidently" including competing anti-virus products in the virus signature file. Microsoft's work with IBM on OS/2 (which led to Microsoft taking all the code for themselves and mangling Windows 3.11 to break OS/2's compatibility layer) was another example.


      Sure, anyone can turn over a new leaf. That's always possible. But that won't stop the incidental music from Psycho from playing in my mind whenever I hear of Microsoft working with others. There are some areas where I think it might be safe. There's been no work on Linux' IBCS module for a long time. This would benefit Microsoft, as they could then run Linux software natively. That wouldn't hurt Linux too much, as many Unixes have been able to do this for a while, and the code is out there anyway. However, it would benefit Linux, precisely because other OS' can run Linux binaries but Linux can't run theirs without IBCS being brought up-to-date.


      MPLS for Linux is another dead project that would be highly valuable to revive, and equally valuable to Microsoft to have for Windows. MOSIX and OpenMOSIX development has been at snail's pace over recent months - boo! - and Microsoft's clustering technology would certainly benefit from a comparable system, making a joint venture into improving this technology a definite plus for all sides.


      If such ventures don't work out, Linux doesn't suffer because the level of work in these areas is small anyway. You can't lose by not getting what you wouldn't have had anyway. On the other hand, if they did work out, it would be an opportunity to develop extremely valuable technology with resources that would be extremely hard to muster by any other means.


      To those who are contemplating any kind of alliance with Microsoft, however, just remember that the Computer is your friend. It says so. And if you don't agree, it may use you as reactor shielding.

  • by w33t (978574) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @12:42PM (#15525003) Homepage
    The GPL is like a nude beach. It's an agreement that you are no going to wear any clothes on this beach.

    Microsoft wants to hang out on that beach but not remove thier clothing.

    I can't blame them; but The sunbathers all know that Microsoft is just there to ogle.

  • by mike77 (519751) <mraley77@@@yahoo...com> on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @12:42PM (#15525011)
    diplomacy is how to say "Nice Doggie" while you look for a really big stick
  • by also-rr (980579) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @12:43PM (#15525022) Homepage
    It's designed to spec, the APIs are public and the source code is out there. Step 1) Microsoft freeze and publish their APIs under a GPL compatible license so that existing interop OSS projects such as Samba can polish the last couple of percent into their products. Step 2) Microsoft adapt their software to work with established standards such as PDF, ODF, OpenGL, HTML etc etc etc. Step 3) There is no step 3. OSS stuff *already* interoperates with anything written to open standards, as well as rather a lot of closed standards. I fail to see what more they need to do.
    • by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @01:05PM (#15525274) Homepage Journal
      It's designed to spec, the APIs are public and the source code is out there. Step 1) Microsoft freeze and publish their APIs under a GPL compatible license so that existing interop OSS projects such as Samba can polish the last couple of percent into their products. Step 2) Microsoft adapt their software to work with established standards such as PDF, ODF, OpenGL, HTML etc etc etc. Step 3) There is no step 3. OSS stuff *already* interoperates with anything written to open standards, as well as rather a lot of closed standards. I fail to see what more they need to do.

      Remember this: Microsoft's goal is to win. For Microsoft to win, everyone else has to lose. You need to learn Microsoft lingo: 'Interoperability' for Microsoft means 'embrace and extend'. 'Truce' means no more Samba, no more OpenLDAP, no more WINE, no more Exchange connectors, no more Linux, etc. See 'everybody wins'! ('Everybody' meaning 'everybody with stock options at Microsoft').

  • Windows Networking (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rjdegraaf (712353) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @12:43PM (#15525027)
    Microsoft, show your intention by opening Windows Networking!
  • by MarkEst1973 (769601) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @12:44PM (#15525034)
    The last time Bill Gates spoke of peace I was a boy. And many Free Software nobles, who would not be slaves, were lured by him under a flag of truce to a barn, where he had them hanged. I was very young, but I remember Gate's notion of peace.
    • Just keep in mind that when the Gates sends his sexy French daughter-in-law to negotiate, she is randy and ready to go.

    • I couldn't have said it any better. They have bent-over-and-screwed anyone that has partnered with them when it suits their needs. They will continue to do the same. Don't trust 'em, don't listen to 'em. They have shown time & time again that they can't be trusted.
  • The great thing about interoperability with Microsoft is that it's not. MS loves to "inovate" any open standard it gan get it's hands on. Amazingly enough, MS holds the copyright, patends and actaul implimentations for all of this inovation so the open standard quickly becomes a closed standard, at least if you wnat to interoperate with their version of it.

    The GPL did one thing very right. It said that companies that "improve" software have to give those improvements back to the community. If the leader
  • Open source, on the other hand, historically has had a tough time building integrated solutions in that distributed fashion, Muglia said, and, "Our customers demand that from us. So there are certain things we have to do that are core to our development and our customers that we can't learn from open source because they are not doing that."

    Say what?
  • As per Linux screensaver for Windows [linuxtracker.org] (direct Torrent link here [linuxtracker.org], interoperability really is not a problem.

    Windows for home entertainment, Linux for business !

  • by Billosaur (927319) * <wgrother@NOSPAM.optonline.net> on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @12:46PM (#15525052) Journal

    Asked what the reaction from the community had been to Microsoft's outreach on this front, Muglia said it was "skeptical but intrigued. What people are starting to discover is that people who write GPL code are not evil and people who write commercial software are also not evil, we just have different approaches."

    The goal, from both sides, is to meet customer needs, he said, adding, "This is just the more mature view of the way the world is evolving, and we want to make sure that if customers are choosing Linux or other open-source-based products that we have ways of interoperating and working effectively with that."

    Linux and open-source companies remain Microsoft competitors, and the goal is to do a better job than they do at solving customer needs, and ultimately to have customers choose Microsoft solutions. However, if customers choose not to, Microsoft needs to be interoperating and working well with those companies.

    Microsoft "seems" to be coming around to the idea that perhaps the best way to beat OSS is to join it. Making their stuff interoperable gives people flexibility and perhaps that would keep them from completely switching over to OSS from Windows, if they get the idea that they can do it at any time and always switch back if it doesn't work for them. It's a canny bit of work by Redmond, but the question now is: can they actually make things interoperable?

  • by BFaucet (635036) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @12:46PM (#15525058) Homepage
    So they want to benefit from all the work done for OSS projects without contributing any work back?

    Am I missing something?
    • by GreatBunzinni (642500) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @01:34PM (#15525636)
      Exactly.

      By "calling in a truce", what Microsoft is claiming is that they can not contain the influx of quality F/OSS projects which is now starting to surface. To make things worse, those projects are starting to take a big chunk of the market share. They know that F/OSS has arrived and it will not leave. They know that it is quite plausible that a F/OSS application becomes a killer app. So now they have two choices: keep marginalizing the free software movement and drive away their participants or make sure that it is possible that those applications are constantly ported to MS's platform.

      So that is what MS is trying to accomplish. They know that the fight against the free software is lost and now, instead of trying to kill it, they are diverting at least part of their energies trying to preserve their stronghold on the market. They know that a platform is only as good as the applications which it can run and if MS's platform doesn't run the next killer app, what is it good for anyway?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @12:48PM (#15525079)
    You need to consider: since when has the Linux/FOSS community ever deliberately made something not-interoperable with Windows? There are a few times and reasons, I'm sure, many of them strictly legal reasons, or adhering to some standard instead of adopting broken behaviours... but Microsoft really has no place to complain about their treatment, at least from a software development point of view.
  • While of course Microsoft wants interoperability now that Linux is showing that it's growing and there's nothing MS can do about it. They even have the advantage. They could simply read the code of the "offending" interoperability problem and make their own code for it.

    However, it would seem to me that MS needs to start opening things up to the OSS community. After all, as it's growing MS's server market will decline. Since many of their "functions" need the server side products to interact with it's hu
  • Linux and OSS don't have 'customers', they have users. Big Difference.
  • by Mprx (82435) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @12:51PM (#15525121)
    Ignoring the blatant lie that the GPL is incompatible with "intellectual property" (the GPL *depends* on copyright for its effectiveness), this whole article is clearly designed to obscure the real issues.

    The article is correct in that "Open source is a way of building software", but the GPL is primarily concerned with Freedom, not the practicalities of building software. You'll notice Microsoft never refers to Free Software, only Open Source. Open Source *is* primarily concerned with the development methodology, and by concentrating only on this issue Microsoft implies that Freedom is unimportant. There's a great danger of thinking only of Open Source, and then ending up in a situation not much better than if you had used proprietary software. Open Source doesn't necessarily mean Free.
  • open the window (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Whammy666 (589169) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @12:51PM (#15525122) Homepage
    If M$ wants to appease the OSS group, they need to open the windows API spec. They don't need to publish any source code. Just the specs. The old DOS api is fully spec'd, so why not windows? After all, competition is good for the consumer and promotes innovation. Isn't that what M$ claims it's trying to promote?
  • Article? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The Z Master (234139) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @12:51PM (#15525124)
    That wasn't a news article. It was an interview. Notice how the reporter didn't get any opinions from major open source players. The entire text was either a quote or a paraphrase of Bob Muglia. Seems a bit one-sided if you ask me.
  • Its funny how the Microsoft people dont get it. That Free Software is not about making the best software, or meeting customer needs. Its about Freedom. What he is saying is a bit like a dictator saying, don't try to unseat me and I won't sponsor terrorism in your country. It is not something we can accept.
  • Let's see. On one side, we have Microsoft, singular colossus of the industry, abuser of monopoly power, left with naught but a nano-scale layer of public trust. On the other side, we have a great mass of Open Source/Free Software advocates, where the moderate voices are undermined by those whose rational distrust of Microsoft has turned to irrational paranoia and hatred.

    I hope there's a Plan B, because this whole "Us vs. Them" thing isn't leading anybody anywhere.

  • Microsoft's efforts to reach out to the open source community

          Sorry but I read that as "Microsoft's efforts to stop their nose-diving share price". Look at US - we're Microsoft. We're not evil either. Look! Look damn you! Smithers!
  • Obviously, Microsoft have sensed that there are a fair number of people in the community who think that the BSD license is the only truly "free" license, and that with the new GPLv3 and the added protections, they think they can split the community. A house divided unto itself, etc. etc.
  • by Secrity (742221) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @12:59PM (#15525206)
    "we want to make sure that if customers are choosing Linux or other open-source-based products that we have ways of interoperating and working effectively with that."

    OSS products are by definition "open", meaning that it is up to MS to make the next move by publishing its API's, stop changing API's, stop doing crappy things to the OSS community, and to change it's licensing to allow FOSS programmers to use suposedly "open" MS products.
    • I read this as:
      1. Vista is delayed waiting for HDCP from Intel
      2. MS trying again to create their version OSS and sell it as OSS
      3. MS trying again to partner with linux distros to destroy them from the inside (many examples)
      4. MS trying again to refuse to open APIs.
  • Hitler and Russia (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WindBourne (631190) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @01:00PM (#15525216) Journal
    MS needs time to focus on one threat at a time. Their single greatest threat is Google. If they can get everybody to play nice with them for a time, they can take out google. Once that is done (or perhaps even before), they will simply go on the attack for the next target. Gates has the same ethics as Hitler (try to crush your enemies and own your friends when you are able to).

    Now, is the time for the FOSS world to be more like the UK and America of old, rather than to roll over.
  • ...now you show us yours.

    A little good faith on behalf of MS would be a nice start

  • "A commercial company has to build intellectual property, while the GPL, by its very nature, does not allow intellectual property to be built, making the two approaches fundamentally incompatible, Muglia said."

    "Linux and open-source companies remain Microsoft competitors, and the goal is to do a better job than they do at solving customer needs, and ultimately to have customers choose Microsoft solutions." (Emphasis added.)

    So which one is it, Bob?

    Here, let me help: the GPL, unlike the BSD license

  • MS has taken this tactic for years. The the model of GPL'd source is not really MS's cup of tea. Rather, they will taken any *input* other developers would like to give to their code. For example, we use the MS Enterprise Libs for .NET here for a few things. It ships with code, which we can extend and use. However, you'll not see us distribute our modified source with anything we like, even if we merely wrap and give props to the original authors. And, you won't find Ent Lib sources anywhere else exc
  • The article served its purpose.

    #1) It made a trade pub.
    #2) It generated interest in their product.
    #3) It made them look good.
    #4)It can be pointed to when something breaks.

    Support is one of the weaker areas of OSS. So I see it going something like this.

    Look at the e-week article; we tried to work with the OSS community to the benefit of the customer. They just broke it again. Try to contact them with the issue.
  • In a session titled "Windows/Linux integration: The Art of the Possible" on June 12, Moskowitz said that Linux is free like a puppy is free, "but after that comes the costs of training and the leashing and the dog-sitter."

    While Linux has been more stable than Windows historically, that gap is now narrowing. But there are a lot fewer reboots with Linux, he said, asking the audience whether Linux has less security bugs.

    After hearing their response, he acknowledged that there is no consensus on this question a
  • by AJWM (19027) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @01:22PM (#15525460) Homepage
    The whole notion of a "truce" is silly. Other than writing better software, how is Linux attacking Microsoft? Nobody on the FLOSS side is, AFAIK, suing Microsoft for anything. Heck, OSS licenses don't even prohibit running so-licensed software on MS operating systems -- which is more than can be said for some MS EULAs regarding non-Windows systems.

    So, just what is it they want to stop?

    And why should we accept anything less than unconditional surrender?

  • Open source already operates according to open standards...
    All microsoft need to do, is implement and support the same open standards. This "war" they talk about having a truce in, is because their products are using proprietary formats and/or protocols, which force people to use their products.

    People like choice, whereas microsoft try to take away your freedom of choice because that's easier for them than offering a better choice in a free market.

    If they would make sure all their products complied with published standards (or help create such standards, where non already exist, and in an open way involving any interested parties), then opensource would have less of a need to compete and fight against them.

    All i want, and i`m sure many people agree, is freedom to choose. I absoloutely despise the idea of being forced to use any particular product, i want to be able to choose whatever suits my individual needs best.

    Currently i won't use microsoft products, because they seek to remove my freedom of choice... If they implement open standards and provide me this freedom i would consider using them based on the merits of each individual product.
  • by Dr. Crash (237179) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @01:54PM (#15525854)
    A friend took a job with Microsoft a few months ago. Before that, he worked with me on
    an open-source system that is moderately widely deployed. We even got a paper into a
    decent technical conference on the open-source system.

    MICROSOFT WOULD NOT PERMIT HIM TO PRESENT THE PAPER. They flat-out refused to permit it.
    This is dispite the fact that all of the work that was done quite a while before he joined MS, and
    made no mention of MS.

    Apparently, even "acknowledging the exixtence" of open source software is something MS
    is not willing to countenance in the rank and file employees.

    This is not "friend of a friend". I was also an author on that paper, and this happened
    after Jan 1, 2006, so it's not "stale data" either; it's current policy.

    Let that be a warning. Sign NOTHING with Microsoft. NOTHING!
  • by Bitsy Boffin (110334) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @02:02PM (#15525934) Homepage
    Said the cunning Spider to the Fly, " Dear friend what can I do,
    To prove the warm affection I 've always felt for you?
    I have within my pantry, good store of all that's nice;
    I'm sure you're very welcome -- will you please to take a slice?"
    "Oh no, no," said the little Fly, "kind Sir, that cannot be,
    I've heard what's in your pantry, and I do not wish to see!"
  • by udoschuermann (158146) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @02:09PM (#15526003) Homepage
    "You got to be trusted by the people that you lie to so when they turn their backs on you, you get the chance to put the knife in." -- Pink Floyd, "Dogs" (Animals, 1977)

    In all seriousness, Microsoft likely understands quite well what Open Source and what Free Software is all about and they know they are not prepared (and quite possibly incapable) of operating under any such banner. Control is their game. Control of standards, markets, minds, and of ideas. They will never let go of that. They cannot.

    They are not "seeing the light" at all, but continuing to formulate and play out strategies to convince all who would listen (or not think too clearly, at least) that limited openness is all you really need and freedom has to do with price and TCO. Don't worry. Just relax and play along, all will be fine. Really!

    But think of how many billions of dollars Microsoft stands to lose (and is already losing given that a quarter of Dell's server business, for example, is shipping GNU/Linux instead of MS-Windows) and you can probably think of just how far they will go and how many resources they will dedicate to keeping their golden goose from heading for the hills with that smiling penguin.
  • by Linux_ho (205887) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @02:10PM (#15526036) Homepage
    What people are starting to discover is that people who write GPL code are not evil and people who write commercial software are also not evil, we just have different approaches.

    The goal, from both sides, is to meet customer needs, he said, adding, "This is just the more mature view of the way the world is evolving..."
    Translation: So... it's starting to look like all that money we dumped into the SCO FUD machine is no longer slowing down the flood of customers moving to GPL'd code. Um, please everyone, let's be mature about this. We're not evil, the GPL guys aren't evil. Let's not point fingers. Can't we all get along? We swear we're going to meet customer needs, as long as customers don't demand to see the source code. We can do the community stuff, but come on, you don't really expect us to show you the source. Right? Right? Guys?
  • by kindbud (90044) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @02:20PM (#15526176) Homepage
    "What people are starting to discover is that people who write GPL code are not evil and people who write commercial software are also not evil, we just have different approaches." - Muglia


    Which people are discovering this? I don't think anyone has any beef with the people who write software. It's the management of companies like Microsoft we have a problem with. The coders are all right and always have been. You think we look upon you and Gates and Ballmer and the rest as coders! It is to laugh. Your agenda is other than making good code. If making bad code makes money, bad code it is. Do you think we're morons? Try not insulting us if you want to build bridges.

    The goal, from both sides, is to meet customer needs, he said, adding, "This is just the more mature view of the way the world is evolving..."


    No, dude. You're only just now barely realizing that the world is passing you by. The world evolved - past tense. You just missed the train and now have to hire a heliocopter to get you to the party. But you're trying to pass it off like you're Alan Arken and Peter Falk arriving late at the wedding.

    What you need to do now to make up for it is to do what they did in "The In-Laws". Hand over envelopes of cash to some OSS projects including some GPL projects, no strings attached. That'll show us you're sincere. You can even deduct it.
  • by mgpeter (132079) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @02:35PM (#15526330) Homepage
    - Where are they whenever there is a CIFS meeting ??

    - Where did they go once ODF was being finalized ??

    - Why don't they let the Mono guys present at Windows Conferences ??

    If Microsoft wants interoperability they must realize that interoperability does not mean everyone else bending over backwards for them. It means working with other Companies/Individuals to ensure that EVERYONE benefits from it, not just Microsoft.
  • Great/NTFS (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Devil (16134) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @02:51PM (#15526505) Homepage
    This is fantastic! So, when can we expect to see Microsoft release an NTFS API that allows users to safely read and write to those volumes?
  • by sfjoe (470510) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @04:13PM (#15527233)
    The suit from Microsoft continues with the company-mandated propaganda, "A commercial company has to build intellectual property, while the GPL, by its very nature, does not allow intellectual property to be built, making the two approaches fundamentally incompatible", Muglia said.

    How is this a truce? How is this even slightly different from the FUD Microsoft regularly churns out? Is this the new strategy - to portray themselves as reasonable people being unfairly targeted by the open-source community?

  • by walterbyrd (182728) on Tuesday June 13, 2006 @10:10PM (#15529268)
    Msft is still funding the scox-scam, among msft many other backstabing, system-abusing, practices.

    It's like somebody saying "hey, let's stop fighting" while they're stopping on your face.

"Turn on, tune up, rock out." -- Billy Gibbons

Working...