Codeplex 100 Day Deadline Passes Unremarked 106
Andy Updegrove writes "As you may recall, Microsoft announced back on September 10 that it had launched a new, open source organization called the CodePlex Foundation. Since then, it has announced Project Acceptance and Operation Guidelines, its first 'Gallery' (a project area), supporting Microsoft's ASP.NET, and two projects in that gallery. But it had also launched in a 'less than open' state with an interim Board of Directors, and a promise to elect a permanent one in 100 days. Problem is, December 19 — the 100 day mark — passed quietly, with no announcement of a new Board or a status update on the other goals it had set for the launch period. So what's up with the CodePlex Foundation, and its pledge to promptly transition into a more independent organization?"
Whats the big deal (Score:1, Interesting)
Give me a break, this is news? Only to those desperate to bash Microsoft.
I code in C#, I use Windows. I do not feel welcomed at SourceForge. I will use CodePlex because regardless of it's backers, it is a friendlier community to me.
Is it news or isn't it? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think for everyone on all sides of the matter of the public opinion of Microsoft, it is quite safe to say that Microsoft is not of one view or of one voice. Microsoft is a highly conflicted company that, perhaps, wants to serve its customers but continues to serve its own interests first.
Each and every time there is a story like this, on how Microsoft fails to live up to its hype and/or promises, it leaves me saddened that my opinion of the company continues to be unchanged.
Microsoft is a company that cannot "let go" of anything. Take .NET for example -- it is a miserable failure that they won't let die. They claimed they would use it exclusively going forward and have they? Nope. The only applications written in it are by 3rd parties and I can't say that they are all great programs to use. Even when threatened with tremendous sanctions and punishment, they can't let go of the ways that get them into trouble. (And now that the US government is under a less sympathetic party's control they should be especially careful! Their oversight period has expired and they have not changed. I expect 2010 to start off with announcement of yet another action by the DoJ against the unrepentant MSFT.)
Still. Is it news? Microsoft's promises are not to be believed under any circumstances. You just have to wait for their actual actions, inactions and reactions. Anything they say should be disregarded.
Re:Lessig on what plex is really important (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a ring of truth to what you say. Microsoft does hire a lot of people, and pays them pretty well. They have proven they can do at least second-third best compared to similar products in most fields, even if it takes them a while to get there. Yes, MS is in it for the money, and they do play dirty pool, but they are not exactly a raging demon out to consume your soul just for spite.
However, on the front of Open Source? FSF is a leader, Microsoft is not.
Re:Lessig on what plex is really important (Score:2, Interesting)
What are you talking about? Windows isn't a closed eco-system, beyond the 50,000 employed directly by Microsoft there are hundreds of thousands if not MILLIONS of jobs created to implement, maintain, enhance, extend and embrace Microsoft products. MS doesn't lock you in to anything and in the case of schools and businesses those businesses are choosing to lock-in to a specific vendor for business reasons - not ideological ones.
Believe it or not, the world wants accountability and you don't get that with open source since the accountability falls squarely on your own resources in most cases. People want a large resource pool, people want a stable business, support they can rely on and an infrastructure than can grow with their business.
There is plenty of open source software regardless of the platform to support academia, small businesses and those that simply hate Microsoft. There is also plenty of Commercial software as well.
Be careful (Score:2, Interesting)
Fast forward to today: Windows 7 Home edition has had the ability to join domains REMOVED (this was available back with Win 95 through XP). A new networking capability, HomeGroup is available. HomeGroups can only have Windows 7 members. Windows XP, Macintoshes, even Windows Vista, need not apply. In short, rather than implement a cheap (free?) SMB server capability in every machine, yet another proprietary networking protocol has been developed to force users to upgrade (downgrade?).
A new variation on the NTFS file system has been developped too. This means more issues with interoperability between XP and Windows 7 - let alone Samba/Linux.
What I'm trying to say here is that Windows 7 has been very carefully engineered to NOT interoperate on both a filesystem and networking level with XP and cause problems with Samba shares - unles you buy the Win7 Pro version. My suspicion is that the reason for this stems from the intimate knowledge gleaned from the Samba team (NOTE: I have no way of proving this).
Don't cozy up to Microsoft. Stay away from any so-called open-source initiatives that they are putting forward. They are just a ploy to use the openeness against itself. This is a new MSFT's new method of attack on open source.