Microsoft Plans "Shared Source" .NET 242
raelity writes "Microsoft has announced its first foray into the waters of publicly shared source. In an O'Reilly Network interview, Tim O'Reilly talks to Microsoft program manager (and FreeBSD sympathizer) Dave Stutz about Redmond's plans to release shared-source code of parts of the .NET framework. The offerings include: a C# compiler, C# based ECMAscript compiler, and shared-source CLI for Windows and FreeBSD. The announcement comes against a backdrop of Microsoft's
recent attack on some aspects of open source software development, particularly against the GNU Public License (GPL)." I think Jamie put it best when he said recently 'open source: "share and enjoy"; shared source: "look but don't touch"'. This is most certainly an interesting development- so far the Open Source/Free Software division has been the main one, but not we have a third branch. Imagine what would happen if MS adopted a fair license? Compatibility and competition. We would all benefit.
Some source I'd like to share with Microsoft: (Score:2)
void main () { printf("Bite me!\n"); }
--
Re:Some source I'd like to share with Microsoft: (Score:3)
--
Further translation... (Score:2)
The GPL isn't a *VIRUS*, it's an immunization.
Exploiting *BSD's dislike for the GPL (Score:5)
They've picked up on the scism between the *BSDs and Linux over the GPL, and they're playing one off against the other. "It's not Open Source we don't like, it's the GPL!" - presto! They get instant allies from the *BSD folks.
Evil evil evil. But clever.
How long before we are faced with a version of "Microsoft BSD"? - enhanced and extended of course. After all, to run Office For BSD, you'll need *this* little kernel patch, and IIS For BSD will need *this* little tweak to the network stack, and oh, init now requires an instance of Actice Directory somewhere before it'll boot and...
Well, you get the picture.
But for the GPL, there goes Linux!
*BSD folks, be careful. It looks like Microsoft has determined their Open Source strategy - and it's YOU! "Embrace, extend, extinguish"; welcome to Phase One.
DG
Re:Imagine... (Score:2)
Quite. No matter what Microsoft do, they will never get a fair hearing on /.
I'm not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing, it just is.
Don't they already do this kind of thing? (Score:3)
Sun should make Java Free/Open Source to fight C# (Score:2)
Re:Corel? HAHAHAHHAHA (Score:2)
All the better. Microsoft doesn't want a quality port of their CLI. They want something that barely works. Heck, they want something even more useless than the token "POSIX" Windows NT layer. Microsoft is just spreading more FUD about Linux and trying to stir things up in the Free Software community. They don't actually want FreeBSDers to be able to run .NET servers on their boxen, that would be competition.
Re:compiler and CLI (Score:2)
Microsoft simply want to leverage their desktop penetration into server and mobile device space. They've dissed java for years, trying, and to some extent succeeding, in slowing adoption of java. Now that they've got their own implementation of essentially the same ideas, they suddenly want us to think it's wonderful.
Windriver aquired BSDi, interested in getting BSD technology for the embedded market. So with Microsoft's move, it might be possible to get .NET running on such devices too.
On the other hand, I have not seen anything that prevents a port of that .NET implementation
to Linux.
I guess that embedded people will get a large choice of what OS to use (proprietary, Linux or BSD based) and what crossplatform runtime (Java or .NET based).
Cool (Score:2)
--
Re:What bugs me about GPL (Score:2)
Otherwise you have not shown the GPL to be hurting you in any way. I however am not happy with your desire to steal my code, depriving me of possible income from you buying it from me, and then go and try to accuse me of doing something dirty, when you are the immoral one.
Re:What bugs me about GPL (Score:2)
I don't like people feeling that they can copy my work for any purpose whatsoever without paying me, just because I allow some people to copy my work for free for specific purposes. For some reason they don't seem to have a problem with the fact that MicroSoft or Sun do not allow then to use their code for free, but the fact that I put the code under the GPL makes me somehow evil!
It's called 'divide and conquer' (Score:2)
Third branch??? (Score:5)
Oh, come on. Open Source and Free Software are almost completely the same thing. Which name you use is nothing but an indication of the reason why you think the freedom to use/modify/redistribute is important.
"Shared source", however, is a completely different thing. It gives you none of the freedoms both Open Source and Free Software give you.
Calling it a "third branch" is exactly the kind of misrepresentation you'd expect from the Microsoft FUDmeisters, but not from a Slashdot editor.
Bill Gates quoting his favorite movie (Score:2)
"It's NOT a tumor"
Re:Exploiting *BSD's dislike for the GPL (Score:3)
That's exactly right. Any open source developer that looks at MS's code is tainted, and can't work on other similar projects. Beware.
Re:.NET marketing blitz? (Score:2)
Oh - de-SmartTag your web site now with
massive typo? (Score:2)
:%s/CLI/CLR/g
action? Have they changed their tune mid-stream? (yes, I read the article, its just that this is the first time I've seen CLI amongst the gajillion references to CLR).
(Coming soon from Microsoft: Common Language Interface Technology. Or not.)
Tim OrEilly is no Friend of Free Software/Open Src (Score:2)
Tim O'Reilly is not a friend of Free Software, nor is he a friend of Open Source. He is a friend of Tim O'Reilly, and he has discovered that merely getting rich off of Free Software and Open Source isn't enough to satisfy his appetites
He gave Microsoft shill's a forum at his Open Source conference to spread their anti-free software fud and legitimize their proprietary "shared source" as though it were somehow "open source" (it isn't).
He is now lending support (and percieved legitimacy) to Microsoft's most serious intellectual (I use the term very loosely) attack on free software through his publishing company by promoting interviews such as this.
In short, he is selling us all down the river, open source and free software advocates alike, for his own personal profit. It is past time that we stopped giving him the time of day and started treating him in a manner appropriate to his behavior: as an erstwhile colleague who has betrayed us, who worthy of little respect and absolutely no trust.
Unethical behavior remains unethical (Score:2)
I always find it amusing how people, Americans in particular, find it perfectly acceptable to apply one set of ethical standards to everyday life, and a very different, much more lax, set of ethical standards to activities engaged in in the persuit of wealth. The notion that actions which would be almost universally condemned in private life are accepted, even lauded, when conducted in the context of business, is perhaps one of the most noxious, yet enduring cultural legacies of the Regan/Bush era.
There are some few of us who do still adhere to the notion that actions which are wrong when conducted in one's private life remain wrong even when the goal persued happens to be the almighty dollar. Tim O'Reilly represents himself as a leader and friend of the Open Source and Free Software movements, then betrays that role, and the trust he has garnered playing it, by providing some of its most zealous foes with a forum to espouse their own propoganda, under the very auspices of a conference perporting to support that very movement. Only someone very gullible would equate the marketing propaganda of Mundie and others with "information," and only a fool would be blind to the implications of what Tim O'Reilly is helping Microsoft do.
I'll say it again. Tim O'Reilly is not a friend of the Free Software movement. He is not a friend of the Open Source movement. He is a friend of Tim O'Reilly, and will persue his own interests to the detriment of those of both of the aforementioned movements if he believes doing so will move his own personal agenda, in this case the accumulation of wealth, forward. It would behoove anyone inclined to look to him as an ally or leader to remember that hard, cold fact.
The fact that many people -- not just Microsoft -- see the GPL as an impediment to their right to sell software at a profit shouldn't surprise anyone anymore than the fact that O'Reilly expects you to pay for thier books.
And here you reveal yourself to be the troll that you are. "Many people" indeed. Some few, relatively speaking, feel threatened by the plethora of free software making their expensive and often inferior products obsolete. Certainly those whose business models rely on the incarceration of the customer into their product line by denying them freedom of choice and the basic consumer freedoms granted them by the GPL do. However, once again, only a fool incapable of managing their own codebase would feel at all threatened by the GPL alone, for it nowhere compells one to use GPL code in their project. Indeed, the default situation provided by copyright law is that no code other than one's own may be incorporated into one's project. Microsoft, and others like them, need only continue to do as they purport to have always done: write their own code and leave the GPLed code being given away to the rest of us.
If you're real issue is a denial of the right to own and sell software, then cut to the chase and declare yourself.
This is truely the most amusing sentence of a very amusing troll. I point out that the actions of one who sells himself as an Open Source / Free Software leader are detrimental to those movements, and that although he is aware of it he knows he'll get more business (in the form of $500 (or whatever $) / person attendees flocking to hear what Microsoft will say in an Open Source conference) and so is willing to do such harm regardless, and that in light of this the community should be wary of him, his motives, and most particularly his actions, and you immediately extrapolate from that the absurd notion that I somehow reject the concept of property, merely because I object to someone using unethical means to accumulate more of it.
Thank you. I haven't been quite so entertained for some time.
Re:Exploiting *BSD's dislike for the GPL (Score:2)
Very very clever turning a community's divisions upon itself. But also of dubious real world use -- Face it - 99% of the use of Linux in business situations is for pragmatic, not ideological reasons. Trying to appeal to the philosopher inside of the IT manager is a stunt that's never been tried and probably won't be particularly successful. Arguments about "Freedom" might play on slashdot, but not in the boardroom.
I agree that *BSD is going to be used as the object example for Microsoft's next gen of portable, non-Windows-dependant software. However, not stuff like Office, but instead app servers and the other server-oriented middleware. There's also absolutely no need for "Microsoft BSD" -- remember that they only would be doing this to say "Look! We're Portable!" for certain pieces and wouldn't really want to detract from their core investment in NT.
And why BSD, besides the licening? I hate to sound like the troll, but when you look at numbers like Linux 20% versus BSD 1% for server shipments, at least from Microsoft's point of view it seems like a nice, safe, academic OS with little corporate adoption (or adoption only around the 'edges' such as routers and web servers) Meaning nobody would be too tempted to put their stuff into production Fortune 500 Corp. And if BSD use grows at the expense of Linux, hey, that ain't bad for Microsoft either.
--
What bugs me about GPL (Score:2)
Is that you cannot utilize any library etc. that is GPL'd inside a product that is proprietary. I think it limits its effectiveness by not allowing anyone to do that.
As I recall, Bill Gates wasn't attacking open source, but rather the GPL for specificly this reason.
Go ahead, mod me down. I know you will.
Re:Exploiting *BSD's dislike for the GPL (Score:2)
Anyway, there are a lot more BSD boxes than you think - usually because someone put them somewhere several years ago and they've been happily chugging along doing production stuff ever since.
Anyway, what OS is shipped with a server is irrelevant and you know that - heck, most of the ones we got had Windows while some had Linux - they're all running BSD now.
Market penetration doesn't matter though; Linux, like all other OSes had precisely zero market presence efore they existed - stuff changes.
pollution? (Score:2)
Is this a marketing ploy or a legal ploy? Oh, wait, it's probably both.
Re:compiler and CLI (Score:2)
Just as Java's value proposition is tiny without all those java.* and javax.* classes, so C#/CLR without the
I dismiss the CLR multi-language argument by pointing out the plethora of languages already available that target the JVM - Python (Jython), TCL (Jacl) , scheme, ECMAScript (Rhino) to name a few.
And also by pointing out that in each language that targets the CLR, it is only that subset of functionality of that language that is common to them all that is useful - thus, no multiple-inheritance in Perl, weak contract in Eiffel, etc. etc.
You can bet your bottom dollar MS will play the same old API-modification-under-third-party-developers feet tricks they have always done with the
The Open source community should be united in its rejection of Microsoft's
Re:compiler and CLI (Score:2)
As far as I can tell, were it not for microsoft's ability to break the sun java vm and plug-in with every new windows release, the
Also, as far as I can tell the GUI system for client side
Given that client side java use is increasing due
to mobile devices, which no microsoft OS (not even wince) is particularly well-suited for, as far as I can see, the client-side
System.Windows.Forms - "rich user interface for WINDOWS-based applications" [microsoft.com] (my emphasis)
I very much doubt MS will provide the level of cross platform 2d and 3d pluggable gui support that java provides.
In fact, I'd say that this is a hidden admission that MS sucks on the server side, and they just plain need the server-side subset of
Re:Third branch??? (Score:2)
The GPL is only restrictive to those who would wish to further restrict others by proprietary relicensing.
It's not restrictive to me since I'm not a money-grabbing proprietary software vendor. I couldn't give a rat's ass if the old guard of proprietary coders are forced out onto the streets by the GPL. They don't have a god-given right to wealth - Do you think all scribes were happy when the printing press was invented? Those that were scribing for reasons other than profit, such as the dissemination of an important message, most likely were happy. The others....
So it is with proprietary coders and old-style get-rich-quick software houses. They're threatened by the GPL. But I don't give a damn.
And, in fact, since the GPL (and copyright itself) only comes into effect upon distribution (hence COPYright), even you, Zico, are free to use and modify GPL code to your hearts content - just so long as you don't give it to anyone else under a different license....
And you don't have to use GPL code in the first place if you don't like GPL code. Go suck at mirosoft's teat. Just don't come back to us if you grow up a bit and find you've been suckling on poison...
Re:compiler and CLI (Score:2)
Microsoft simply want to leverage their desktop penetration into server and mobile device space. They've dissed java for years, trying, and to some extent succeeding, in slowing adoption of java. Now that they've got their own implementation of essentially the same ideas, they suddenly want us to think it's wonderful.
Why the hell should we help them?
Sure, sun may be a proprietary, megalomanical systems vendor, just like ms, but at least they produce well-designed, reliable systems to exacting engineering standards.
Unlike, well, anything I've ever seen come out of microsoft.
I remember when win95 came out. It's main advertising point seemed to be "it's way better than that piece of crap windows 3.1". Which MS also made. They were calling their own product crap. And the public loved it!
I really despair of humanity sometimes....roll on AI...
Re:Lather, Rinse, Repeat (Score:2)
Some computer programmers tend to read the shampoo instructions as an infinitely looping program. There is no instruction saying when to stop the cycle.
"Lather, Rinse, Repeat" therefore expresses a certain sense of endless, pointless, reiteration.
Re:compiler and CLI (Score:2)
J2EE is a set of APIs and their implementations for Java. Funny enough, it's implemented by several third -party vendors, most of whom had input into the spec at design-time.
Re:What bugs me about GPL (Score:2)
Why are some people willing to pay money for proprietary code, but fail to accept that the only fee requested by a developer could be that the code and its derivative works _stay_ available?
Re:compiler and CLI (Score:2)
Anyway, any non-jit native compiled stuff rather defeats the purpose for many applications - such as "beaming" active objects between disparate mobile devices via serialization/externalization. Then again, you could implement a "compilation-server" scheme - but that means trusting the compilation server.
While C# does have a few nice features as a language, it's really not significantly different to Java - In fact, I wouldn't be suprised if you could write a C# to java-bytecode compiler, if you miss foreach that much..
Don'ty forget that some language features were deliberately left out of java. In a professional environment, where mixed-ability development teams are common, Java is very useful, because it is so unambiguous and deterministic (see recent java-in-realtime-systems discussions on java.sun.com)
What do you mean by "user defined events"? Are you thinking that Java still uses the ancient 1.0 event model? I've never had any problem defining arbitrary subclasses of java.util.EventObject and associated EventListener interfaces.
Unsafe code???
One of the things main people _like_ about java is the *lack* of unsafe code! That's why it's so popular on servers. There are few non-trivial systems in mainstream computing nearer to provably secure than Java 2. MS security has always sucked. They tend to make terrible decisions from a security standpoint.
In fact, it was MS's crappy-from-a-security-standpoint Java implementation that did most to tarnish java's security rep in the first place...
If most of your experience of Java is via MS's antiquated IE Java support, please go to http://java.sun.com/ [sun.com] and get an up to date Java VM. 1.3.1, or 1.4 beta. (personally, I like 1.4, 'cos it's finally got regular expressions).
To be honest, it sounds like you're, at best, taking everything MS says at face value. Ask IBM's OS/2 team how well that works. Ask SGI's Fahrenheit team. It's not like MS are some new kid on the block with a cool new product, who maybe deserves the benefit of the doubt. They have a history of nastiness.
Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice - shame on me.
Anyway. I still prefer proper languages like Scheme and CLisp.
Re:compiler and CLI (Score:2)
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of implementation inheritance in the first place. I prefer composition in most cases from a design standpoint.
I'm also not sure that it is very far ahead of what's already possible with the JVM. I've already used Rhino [mozilla.org], Beanshell [beanshell.org], DynamicJava and JPython. All of them interoperated pretty seamlessly through the common denominator of Java objects, and with RMI and/or CORBA, you even get a fair degree of language and network transparency.
Re:what's new? (Score:2)
Microsoft is a scientologist plot, anyway...
Re:Very Simple: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish (Score:2)
Then again, you did say "virtually", which, of course, means "not really".
Microsoft are not to be trusted. They have demonstrated themselves untrustworthy in a court of law. If you or I were to submit a doctored video tape as evidence, and get caught doing it, we wouldn't get off scot free. We'd be in jail.
Re:Exploiting *BSD's dislike for the GPL (Score:5)
Interesting (Score:2)
Who says they have to release anything related to the kernel? They act as if it's impossible to release a commercial package with source under linux at all.
Re:Exploiting *BSD's dislike for the GPL (Score:2)
Microsoft's mention of FreeBSD must be purely to plant some FUD against Linux in the minds of pointy-hair bosses. The license used by Linux or FreeBSD does NOT restrict the user applications that can be run on it. I imagine porting
Re:Third branch??? (Score:2)
Yes, the converse is always true. The two "movements" may be light years apart, but the things they are describing are identical.
Every Open Source license meets the definition of Free Software as stated by the FSF. It doesn't matter that RMS says that the APSL isn't Free, it meets the objective qualifications that he set. You are free "to run the program, for any purpose", "to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs", "to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor", and "to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public". It meets every point.
Re:Exploiting *BSD's dislike for the GPL (Score:2)
They ain't getting any allies from us! Get real!
But for the GPL, there goes Linux!
I see you took that Microsoft bait hook, line and sinker. This announcement has absolutely NOTHING to do with the GPL, and everything to do with divide-and-conquer. In order to get
My Conspiracy Theory (Score:2)
FreeBSD does not have a decent Java. That's because Sun won't approve a FreeBSD Java. All it takes is minor tweaks and a recompile of Blackdown. But they won't do it. Just being stubborn I guess.
Microsoft sees this situation and comes bearing C#. "Use this instead! It's better than Java!" I'm thinking they expect FreeBSD developers to roll over and beg.
Re:Third branch??? (Score:2)
But who want's to license their *application* under the LGPL?
Re:Third branch??? (Score:2)
Re:Third branch??? (Score:3)
Bzzzrt! Wrong!
The GPL is restrictive to ANYONE who doesn't use the GPL. I cannot legally create an application licensed under any other Free Software license that dynamically links to a GPL library. It doesn't matter that the license is *less* restrictive than the GPL, I still can't do it. Hell, I can't even link to a GPL library and place my own work into the public domain!
Corel? HAHAHAHHAHA (Score:2)
The CLI is a sophisticated compiler and virtual machine, just like a JVM. Giving it to Corel, a copmany with ZERO compiler/OS/JVM expertise is like telling the people who wrote the AOL client that they should start developing a new operating system.
--JRZ
Re:Exploiting *BSD's dislike for the GPL (Score:2)
I believe you're correct (Score:2)
They earlier exploited the following schisms
1. Netscape/Mosaic (by embracing and extending Mosaic)
2. AIM/Yahoo (by emphasizing the non-compatabilities)
3. Unix/Apple (by embracing and extending Apple, of course)
In all cases, it goes for the more corporatized version of a product and embraces and extends that. It's a very sound strategy, and we should have spotted it sooner. How should we combat it? Perhaps exposing it as it happens is a good way to start. Expect BSD schmoozing and GPL bashing in the future, and be prepared to stand together where it counts.
-Ben
no no no (Score:2)
GPL snobs...
-c
Quick! (Score:2)
Re:What bugs me about GPL (Score:2)
With open source liscences, there are two main schools of thought:
GPL: Not going anywhere near commercial code. If you want to use it, either GPL or don't. Harsh, but not as harsh as many commercial liscences.
LGPL/BSD: You can use it in commercial code, either verbatim chunks (BSD), or as a distinct, linked, entity.
It's the programmers choice. The GPL may limit it's audience, but does it limit it's audience more, or less, than a typical commercial liscence?
--
Re:Cool (Score:2)
All your patches are belong to us (Score:3)
Re:Cool (Score:2)
On the other hand, their STL documentation sucks rocks. I find it pretty much unusable. Luckily, SGI has some excellent docs [sgi.com] on the STL.
--
We would all benefit... (Score:2)
-------
Caimlas
What are you talking about? (Score:2)
"These are the kinds of things that make people say, are these really standards, or are they just standard when you can't get people by the short hairs?"
"but when you take something like Kerberos and you say, let's extend it a little bit and --"
"there is a trust issue that goes back to the Halloween Documents."
Youy really think the guy who said that is kissing ass? What are you smoking, and why aren't you sharing!
Getting it (Score:3)
Of course, no one has actually considered the following question: is it a Good Thing for them to "get it"?
--
SecretAsianMan (54.5% Slashdot pure)
ECMA script (Score:2)
Re:Third branch??? (Score:2)
The differences between the lists of licenses considered open and free respectively by the OSI and FSF are trifling, and turn on what I consider to tiny differences of legal interpretation (Inflammatory opinion: Moglen always seems to lean towards paranoia, eg. in refusing to judge whether the license which Python 2.1 is distributed under is compatible with GPL).
Re:massive typo? (Score:2)
Well, a conformance suite would be a help. That's something that I would think that Microsoft ought to just about be able to open source.
Also a promise that open source implementations won't be hit by law suits for any patents MS might hold on the standards.
Re:TRUST (Score:2)
I thought about this, but I think it will be hard for MS: MS have enough difficulty convincing existing Windows users upgrading to new versions of the operating system, it will be far harder for them to convince non-MS users to upgrade to a new version of .NET. (Sun has big difficulties coaxing people to upgrade their JREs, for instance).
A bigger difference is that people come to depend upon shared libraries, and you can expect the open source .NET libraries to be a tiny fraction of the total. Committing to be a wholly-open-source .NET developer will involve a lot of self-discipline.
How do people think about the differences between Sun and MS with respect to openness? I really don't have an opinion on who is better (ie. less benightedly awful).
Re:Third branch??? (Score:2)
Re:What bugs me about GPL (Score:2)
This "stealing" rhetoric is wrong when used by the RIAA, and is equally inaccurate in this context. At worst, you're talking about copyright infringement.
Re:Exploiting *BSD's dislike for the GPL (Score:2)
Since they have been aware of the GPL, they have probably felt this way. Their dislike of the GPL is nothing new. The probably just feel safer with FreeBSD than Linux.
Even though many people in the BSD community dislike the GPL, this does not make them necessarily trust Microsoft. I don't see instant allies anywhere.
How long before we are faced with a version of "Microsoft BSD"?
I strongly doubt this will ever happen. Why? Cost. Why would Microsoft want to go through all of the trouble of porting everything (i.e., MFC's, WinSock2(pain!), GUI) to *BSD? It would be easier to copy (not steal) code from any BSD that they wanted than to move all of their software and everyone else's software to "Microsoft BSD".
you'll need *this* little kernel patch, and IIS For BSD will need *this* little tweak to the network stack, and oh, init now requires an instance of Actice Directory somewhere before it'll boot and...
Actually, this sounds a lot like the kernel module for Linux scenario from nVidia.
Microsoft Wackyness (Score:2)
Instead they are trying to play up some marketing sidestep from their previous hostile statements. Instead of offering the olive branch they come with gold bars for a select few and try to make it seem like a "peace offering".
You don't need to give away the source to have a successful development platform(heck...Windows is a prime example of this). Why bother "sharing away the source" now unless one thinks there will be big fanfaire and accolades that go along with it?
Another interesting aspect to this is how will the BSD(specifically the FreeBSD) community handle this? Will they embrace it or turn it away? Beats me...it always seemed to me the point of BSD and its license isn't necessarily to foster a community growth/improvement but to get people to use cool free stuff.
GLP and BSD Licenses Only Applies to Coders (Score:2)
The reason why Microsoft's "Shared Source" License is completely unfair is that is a "look but don't touch". The value of having the source is negated since you are unable to change it to suite your needs.
In the end both the GPL and BSD want to provide the coolest running software they can use. Its so unfortunate that fanatics on both sides are so hardline against each other when in the end both really want to make the coolest software possible.
Tim O' Reilly kisses MS butt (Score:2)
--
Microsoft will Find (Score:2)
Re:Some source I'd like to share with Microsoft: (Score:2)
good programming practices aside, it isn't required to.
Actually, you are required to. Compliers just don't enforce it well.
See the comp.lang.c FAQ [eskimo.com] 11.12 [eskimo.com] and 11.14 [eskimo.com]
--Ty
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
They act as if it's impossible to release a commercial package with source under linux at all.
Of course they do, that's what they want people to believe
--Ty
Go you reverse engineers, go! (Score:2)
Linux servers are going to find themselves at an increasingly serious market disadvantage, if they can't run scripts written for MS's new platform.
With luck this release should take a few weeks off the clean-room reverse-engineering.
Recent relevant articles from Linux Magazine:
-- Interview with Dick Hardt of ActiveState.
Pages 3-4 discuss
-- Jon Udell from Byte
What linux can learn from
-- Mark Mitchell from GCC
The practical work needed before GCC can be the cornerstone of a
Getting .NET onto linux is a neccessity -- and soon. It's also probably a bigger project than any one company can support. But it is an effort that needs to be got underway a.s.a.p.
Re:compiler and CLI (Score:2)
I think you are wrong.
It would be better to clone the new API than to ignore it -- then there would be at least a chance of keeping MS honest, in the same way that having to make web pages Netscape-compatible has put the brakes on the proprietary extensions in IE.
At a technical level, it would also be nice to have the seamless inheritance and scriptability of objects between different languages -- this is considerably ahead of what can be done at the moment with JVMs, XPCOM or Bonobo.
Re:pollution? (Score:2)
One of the goals of this release is to have people like you be able to write their own .NET implementations, using this code as a starting point. The exact licensing terms have yet to be decided, but it will be free for non-comercial and educational use, and likely free for commercial use as well. It will definately be able to be ported and used as you wish without encumbering your ability to write .NET code!
But one post up:
if you mean, "Will I be allowed to GPL the C# compiler and CLI that Microsoft is releasing?" then the answer is most likely going to be no. However if you mean "Will I be able to write code that targets the .NET platform and is GPL'ed after looking at these sources?" Then the answer is yes you will.
So what are you saying in your earlier post then, NRLax ?
Being able to GPL applications which use these libraries is irrelevant - the GPL has always allowed application code to link against "system" libraries, whether open or closed: the two are considered independent works.
The question is whether you can enhance this MS code -- for example, to use native linux calls instead of BSD; or to improve the garbage collection or memory management; or to rewrite the back end of the compiler to produce Java bytecode instead; or to do 1001 other things not necessarily in MS's corporate interest.
Under what terms can you release such mods ? Can anybody use "derived work" binaries which include them ? Are "all your patches belong to us" ? What if a later version is incompatible with your patches, or has a less friendly licence ?
All of this is far from clear: so I for one would rather see some clean-room GPL'd extensions to gcc. I hope this release will clarify the spec, and make such a thing easier to reverse engineer. But I share the worry that it may be used to legally "taint" the work of any developers who have looked at it.
Ports (Score:2)
So how much of the code do you imagine I would have to change before MS would allow me to GPL my version ?
Particularly between unix variants, a "port" might just mean changing a handful of system calls.
Do you really think MS would allow something to be GPL'd if it was 98% their code ? Or 90% ? Or 10% ? Or 1% ?
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
Could it be that the reason they're doing the FreeBSD port is Mac OS X? Assuming that OS X is going to be the most widely distributed *NIX variant on the planet, they're going after the biggest market share?
This worries me greatly. I suspect that Microsoft does *not* plan on bringing .NET to Linux (although it remains to be seen how hard they will fight other people who want to try to do so). By going for FreeBSD (and FreeBSD only), they get to:
Through no fault of their own, Apple may have created a tool that Microsoft can use to try to drive a wedge into Open Source.
Re:compiler and CLI (Score:2)
This is equivilent to saying that having a Java compiler and JVM on a varietly of different platforms does nothing to help interoperability because its all bound the the JVM API and its internals.
The CLI is the .NET equivilent of the JVM it allows managed code to executed on a variety of different platforms. This shared source implementation will be initially available for Windows and FreeBSD, but is available to be ported to any other platform. This does a lot to increase interoperability.
Microsoft understands open/free source VERY well. (Score:2)
Microsoft probably understands Open Source and Free Sotware very well.... they probably know it a lot better than most people who support Open Source and Free Software do. Why? Because Microsoft may be evil, but it doesn't remain evil without having incredibly talented and intelligent people working for it.
The issue isn't whether Microsoft gets it or not - they get it, for sure.
The real issue is how Microsoft is going to respond to Open/Free source. We've seen time and again how Microsoft will take a non-Microsoft standard and either introduce their own modified version of it, or introduce an alternative and push it as a competing standard. They want control of everything, and they are going to try to gain control of the resources of the Open Source and Free Software communities, or try to make them irrelevant.
Microsoft will try to re-define what "Open Source" is, or they will try to steal all of the source code press, or they will try to achieve "buy-in" from Open Source community participants.
Just as a basketball team in an away game will try to quickly silence the hometown crowd, Microsoft will try to marginalize the advantages and resources of Open/Free source. But don't for a second think that Microsoft doesn't "get it" right now, or that they have any potential to become the good guys in all of this. Microsoft wants money, and is trying to position their products, services and public image in a way that will allow them to capture more sales.
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
Re:This is all about Java (Score:2)
compiler and CLI (Score:2)
Having these tools does nothing to help interoperability, since that is all bound to the
Redefining the meaning of "shared" (Score:2)
v. tr. Coming soon to a dictionary near you...
Re:Third branch??? (Score:2)
I'm not trying to parrot RMS, but the distinctions are real.
Re:massive typo? (Score:2)
-
CLI: Common Language Infrastructure - defines how a
.net language works, specifies standard data types and so forth
- CLR: Common Language Runtime - converts code written in a CLI-compliant language to MSIL (MS Intermediate Language, sort of bytecode thingy), JITs it and runs it.
So the CLI has been handed to ECMA, to allow anyone to implement a language in such a way that the CLR will be able to run it, while the CLR for Windows remains MS-proprietary.Would be lovely to see the source of the Windows CLR, but it's the CLI that you need to write a CLR for A N Other platform.
TomV
Re:Some source I'd like to share with Microsoft: (Score:3)
Re:Tim OrEilly is no Friend of Free Software/Open (Score:2)
Re:Tim OrEilly is no Friend of Free Software/Open (Score:2)
. As such, it seems to me that O'Rielly is merely logically following a trend that will impact his core community.
I'm amazed -- and a little frightened -- by how many slashdotters assume exposure == legitimacy, or that information == support.
Re:GLP and BSD Licenses Only Applies to Coders (Score:4)
.NET marketing blitz? (Score:3)
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,509
(yes, that's right, Microsoft and others will spend a collective $1,000,000,000.00 marketing Windows XP)
I have to wonder how much they'll market
Get ready to fight the FUD.
Re:Benefit? (Score:2)
Like it or not, Mickeysoft has some good programmers. I don't like Microsoft, but even I can admit the programmers there are pretty damn smart. Ever read any of their books? Writing Solid Code has many good ideas on writing bug free and easily debugged code.
Reply:
And at least as may horrible ones. As a fellow developer, I beg of you to be very careful of adopting the views of that book. A detailed review of why it can be harmful is available at accu [accu.org]. Code Complete, on the other hand, is a very good book. Not really by a microsoft guy, but the author spent alot of time there as a consultant. Plus he draws all of his advice from case studies, so there is research to back up what he says.
Re:Getting it (Score:2)
Re:Benefit? (Score:2)
What sets Microsoft apart from all other programming companies is their singleminded need to dominate every market it touches. I don't think Billy can sleep at night knowing somebody out there is turning on a PC or a toaster and he's not getting a couple shekels off of it. Unfortunately, this market dominance manifests itself quite often in apps rushed to the market, too many features (which MS semi-admitted in W2K by having menus hide unused features) which add to possible defects and bugs, and Microsoft giving you what it wants you to have instead of what you want/need (damn paperclip).
Yes, some of their stuff is shit (ever wade through MFC headers or source? it's ugly in there) but most of them actually have a clue surprisingly enough.
Re:pollution? (Score:2)
There's a difference?
---
Waiting for MS (Score:2)
"We've discovered websphere developers write 80% less infrastructure code"
As far as the License itself goes, it looks like the Lawyers are still working on it.
"We don't actually have a license for you because they're lawyers," Stutz said. "If it was me, I'd have the license."
Pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
Re:Some source I'd like to share with Microsoft: (Score:2)
And what do you propose to have the program do if printf() fails? Print an error message to stdout? ;^)
Answer A: dump core and quit
Answer B: somehow generate a kernel panic
Answer C: print an error to stderr, you dolt!
Answer D: use syslog to record the error
Answer E: avoid using *printf for the security risk that it is.
Re:Some source I'd like to share with Microsoft: (Score:2)
Also interesting to see will be just how their C# compiler compares to the GPL'ed compilers like gcc and g++.
Re:All your patches are belong to us (Score:2)
With shared source, if the user finds something, he can suggest a patch, wait several months, and then try to figure out whether his fix was included in the service pack.
Following the source code of a major project can be a time-consuming process, and the shared source model gives little motivation for users to make the effort. Of course some large corporations may still devote people to examining the source and looking for bugs, but I honestly can't imagine too many people trudging through M$ code. For Microsoft, the legion of eyeballs will remain but a legend.
Very Interesting (Score:3)
This section of the article was particularly telling, in terms of what will be offered in source format and what won't.
Stutz says that the CLI being offered as shared source is a subset of what's in the
the ECMAscript compiler, written in C#, which runs on both platforms (Windows, FreeBSD)
the C# compiler, which also runs on both platforms
and the shared-source CLI.
OK, that's good. It means we can run
It doesn't include
ASP.NET
ADO.NET
Windows Forms
I don't see ASP.NET as a problem, since it is so tied to IIS anyway. ADO would be a HUGE boon to Linux in terms of database programming. Of course having a standard windowing model between Windows and other OSes would be great too, but it appears that is not to be.
He did state that MS is always willing to work with commercial porting companies. This is only a list of what they are letting out in source form for free. A company, say RedHat, could very well port ASP.NET to run on Apache, or Borland could sell a Windows Forms environment for the various *nixes.
Anyhow, he goes on:
When this shared license is revealed, it will certainly be the most liberal software license Microsoft has offered. But Stutz says it's not out of the question that in the future, Microsoft's licenses will become ever more open.
"This is all about Microsoft getting serious about sharing source code in a very wide way," he said. "And it's also a serious long-term commitment to establishing the CLI as a basis for web services. It's really not a short-term, tactical Java battle."
-- russ
What's ours is ours, and what's yours is ours too (Score:2)
From the Microsoft Encarta Dictiionary:
This is all about Java (Score:2)
Flame On. Captain_Frisk out.
What is the license good for? (Score:2)
a "fair" license? (Score:2)