O'Reilly Sez Ask Craig Mundie 201
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.
Re:So... (Score:1)
Answer 2.
To draw an analogy,
Open Source is like this - %
Free Software is like this - ^
Linux is like this - *
GPL is like this - ! [goatse.cx]
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.
dumbass (Score:1)
Why are you asking here?
Serious Question for Mundie (Score:1)
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?
Re:Question: what about the BSD License (Score:1)
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)
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.
OK, here's a question I'd really like to ask (Score:2)
Re:so much for O'Reilly (Score:2)
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...
Re:Irony? (Score:1)
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.
~^~~^~^^~~^
Re:Craig Mundie (Score:1)
--
Why give Mundie a forum to troll on? (Score:2)
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.
The "success" of proprietary software model (Score:2)
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?
Re:Would you calculate MS's profits using int (Score:2)
Just might want to keep that in mind.
Re:What .NET is... (Score:2)
It's not Microsoft who is trying to kill Java, that privilege belongs to Sun who wishes to keep it proprietary at all costs.
Re:This is great news. (Score:2)
"It's the economy stupid!"
Microsoft fuels the economy, the GPL does not.
Re:This is great news. (Score:2)
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.
Re:This is great news. (Score:2)
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.
Re:What .NET is... (Score:3)
But what if one of the right tools is Java? Forcing someone *not* use Java (as
Re:embrace & extend - open source (Score:2)
Re:Questions (Score:2)
Re:This is great news. (Score:2)
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?
--
Re:Governments (Score:2)
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.
--
Re:Governments (Score:2)
No, you are only ensuring that no profit will be made through secret modifications to taxpayer funded software.
--
Re:This is great news. (Score:2)
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. :)
--
Re:This is great news. (Score:2)
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.
--
Re:Innovation and Slashdot (Score:2)
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.
--
Video please (Score:2)
Geoff
Let's be nice and freak him out. (Score:2)
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.
Re:Closed source apps for Open Source OS's (Score:2)
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.
Re:What I'd ask (Score:2)
Right; and stuff released into the public domain is not GPL (though derivatives can be).
What I'd ask (Score:3)
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:Craig Mundie (Score:2)
--
Re:Would you calculate MS's profits using int (Score:2)
[ignore this text, it's to override the moronic "lameness filter]
--
Re:Innovation (Score:2)
Microsoft bought that.
--
Re:Innovation and Slashdot (Score:2)
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
Intelligent menus are also nothing new.
I don't know what SOAP/UDDI is, so I won't answer that one.
Re:Innovation and Slashdot (Score:4)
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.
Not interested really.. (Score:2)
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
Shh! (Score:3)
Re:Closed source apps for Open Source OS's (Score:2)
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.
Nice Marketing Idea (Score:2)
Should make O'reily a few dollars (not that I wouldn't go if I could
Re:Innovation and Slashdot (Score:2)
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
Is Microsoft gonna GPL Windows? (Score:3)
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?
Re:Question: what about the BSD License (Score:2)
Re:Innovation and Slashdot (Score:2)
Re:Innovation and Slashdot (Score:2)
Re:Questions (Score:2)
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?
Re:What I'd ask (Score:2)
Re:Question: what about the BSD License (Score:2)
Re:One little request (Score:2)
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.
Heh heh heh...
One little request (Score:4)
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.
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 [slashdot.org] and vaporware [slashdot.org] 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...
Re:"Shared Source" and the NT native API? (Score:2)
See "Windows NT/2000 Native API Reference", by Gary Nebbett [amazon.com].
Re:My question to Mr. Mundie and Mr. Oreilly (Score:2)
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.
Re:Wow, Smart move by Tim (Score:3)
Tim seems to have a knack for calling controversial folk to the mat. Remember Bezos and one-click?
Irony? (Score:2)
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.
Governments (Score:4)
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?
Re:So... (Score:2)
--
For all the Space Ghost Fans (Score:3)
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Re:What .NET is... (Score:4)
.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.
In short, with
Mr Mundie (Score:5)
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
I would most appreciate a ranking of those costs and benefits.
Re:Craig Mundie (Score:2)
It is the cheapest shape with that property.
Re:Craig Mundie (Score:2)
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.
Re:What .NET is... (Score:2)
Ummm
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.
Re:What .NET is... (Score:4)
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.
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.
--
What .NET is... (Score:5)
Developer View:
The major goal is then to use this technology to build XML based web services.
Marketting View:
Microsoft
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 [slashdot.org] I made before I got to Redmond.
--
Re:What I'd ask (Score:2)
Re:What I'd ask (Score:2)
Re:What I'd ask (Score:2)
Re:Innovation and Slashdot (Score:2)
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:2)
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:Would you calculate MS's profits using int (Score:2)
Re:What .NET is... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Innovation and Slashdot (Score:2)
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 !
Re:What .NET is... (Score:4)
Innovation (Score:5)
Re:Craig Mundie (Score:2)
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.)
Mumdie's asnwers (Score:3)
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.
Re:This Is Not A /. Interview! (Score:2)
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) [oreilly.com] 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.
--
Re:What .NET is... (Score:2)
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.
One question (Score:2)
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?
Re:Governments (Score:2)
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.
This is great news. (Score:4)
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.
embrace & extend - open source (Score:3)
Closed source apps for Open Source OS's (Score:4)
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).
Question: what about the BSD License (Score:5)
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:Governments (Score:2)
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
This Is Not A /. Interview! (Score:5)
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.
Would you calculate MS's profits using int (Score:4)
We are talking billions and billions here.
Or would you use a real number for the decimal accuracy?
"Shared Source" and the NT native API? (Score:4)
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?
Microsoft's anti-GPL stance (Score:2)
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?
boot loaders (Score:2)
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.
Hypothetical Example for Comparison (Score:3)
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?
Re:Irony? (Score:2)
Craig Mundie (Score:5)
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
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:Irony? (Score:2)
Re:What .NET is... (Score:2)
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.
Re:What .NET is... (Score:2)
--
Two witches watch two watches.
Re:Would you calculate MS's profits using int (Score:2)
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.
Re:Closed source apps for Open Source OS's (Score:2)
Better enclose 800$
--
Two witches watch two watches.
what we really want to know (Score:3)
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.
--
Questions (Score:4)
cnet article (Score:3)