Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft .Net Libraries Not Acting "Open Source"

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the promises-broken-or-forgotten dept.

Microsoft 246

figleaf writes "Three years ago, with much fanfare, Microsoft announced it would make some of the .Net libraries open source using the Microsoft Reference License. Since then Microsoft has reneged on its promise. The reference code site is dead, the blog hasn't been updated in a year and a half, and no one from Microsoft responds to questions on the forum."

cancel ×

246 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This should have been seen from the start (5, Insightful)

yakatz (1176317) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088546)

As most people who have tried to write a blog can testify, it is hard to maintain a procedure by force; the reason why so many new blogs are abandoned. If the culture at Microsoft is anti open-source, it will take a constant effort to continue this type of project. The power was obviously not there.

Re:This should have been seen from the start (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088614)

Let me get this straight: nothing happened for a year and a half, and that's news?

Re:This should have been seen from the start (5, Funny)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088898)

Well... I didn't know it wasn't happening... :p

Re:This should have been seen from the start (0, Redundant)

Zerth (26112) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089186)

Let me get this straight: nothing happened for a year and a half, and that's news?

It depends, has Netcraft confirmed it?

Re:This should have been seen from the start (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32088960)

It's okay to lie about things if they don't matter. We learned that from Bubba's sex with that fat chick in the Oral Office. So what if MS promised something about making something open sores? What if they truly meant it at the time, and what if they never did? It doesn't matter, because "open source" doesn't matter. What if they promised to convert all the .NET class names to French? And then didn't do it? AGHHHHHH!!!!! I HAATTTTE MSMSMSMSMSMSMSMS!!!!!!!!!ONE11111

It's because FOSS is no longer the biggest fear (5, Interesting)

ygslash (893445) | more than 4 years ago | (#32090040)

Three years ago, the FOSS movement looked like one of the biggest potential threats against Microsoft. This move was designed to mitigate that threat, so it was worth investing energy in it. The idea was to dilute the concept of FOSS in the mind of the public, thereby weakening the FOSS "brand" as a competitor.

Today, it is appears that Apple and Google are far bigger threats to Microsoft than FOSS ever will be. So Microsoft will not be investing significant energy in trying to dilute the concept of FOSS anymore.

Same old, same old (2, Insightful)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088556)

Same old, same old. Some things will never change.

I am still glad to hear about this specific topic although, just for my personal information.

Of course (1)

Ltap (1572175) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088566)

I'm sure that no one here is surprised.

Re:Of course (3, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088602)

I bet they expected the OS community to have mirrored the reference code sites, start their own blogs, and master the libraries and dole out advice, if they really wanted the .NET Libraries to be Open Source.

Not defending Microsoft, it's not exactly cool, but like you said, what were they expecting?

Re:Of course (4, Informative)

Vahokif (1292866) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088830)

You mean like Mono? The submission is (intentionally or out of ignorance) trying to confuse the read-but-don't-touch "open source" reference implementation that no one uses, their legally binding promise not to sue anyone using open source implementations, and the stuff they have licensed under the OSI-approved MS-PL license.

Re:Of course (3, Interesting)

Millennium (2451) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088694)

The scary part here is that I'm sure plenty of people here are surprised. I wasn't ready to trust Microsoft, and I'm sure many others here weren't either, but an astonishing number of people -including some people in very high places, and yes, Mr. de Icaza, I am looking at you- were. Enough that there were flamewars any time anything remotely .NET-related or Mono-related came up.

Hopefully, we'll be able to get on with our lives now. This has happened before, and will probably happen again, and the community always survives. Some very interesting tools will either die or need to be ported, but that's always how it goes.

Re:Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32089242)

> This has happened before, and will probably happen again

So say we all!

Re:Of course (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089970)

Hopefully, we'll be able to get on with our lives now.

On Slashdot? When the topic concerns both Microsoft and Open Source??

Don't fool yourself.

Sons of Bitches (1)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088592)

That's all I can say. I've had enough of them and their lies.

Re:Sons of Bitches (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32088674)

...what, just NOW?

... and everyone believed Microsoft at its word... (3, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088600)

... why?

Re:... and everyone believed Microsoft at its word (4, Funny)

Hooya (518216) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089422)

" ... and everyone believed Microsoft at its word ..."

Well, no one should have believed Microsoft at its word. Or Excel. Or powerpoint.

How is this different? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32088608)

The reference code site is dead, the blog hasn't been updated in a year and a half, and no one from Microsoft responds to questions on the forum.

How is this different from the majority of "real" FOSS projects on SourceForge?

Re:How is this different? (5, Funny)

Americano (920576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088700)

At the Microsoft site, nobody responds to your questions.

At the SourceForge site, someone responds to your questions with, "You have the code, figure it out yourself, asshole."

Worlds of difference, you see.

Re:How is this different? (5, Insightful)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089488)

Or they'll upload a javadoc/pydoc dump of their uncommented and undocumented code as well, which is about as useful as simply being told to figure it out yourself.

Another possibility is of course that the maintainer comes up with some fairly lame excuse for not working on the project ("my dog had puppies a year ago and I've been completely dedicated to playing with them...") complete with promises of getting the project up to date ("...but I've been looking at some of the patches that have been submitted and there's gonna be a big update any day now.") which means most people will hold off on forking the project.

Then there's the "it's in CVS" projects, you know them, those projects that are required by a whole host of apps yet they haven't had a proper release since 2006, and before that the last release was in 2003, but hey, you can just grab the extremely active development branch from CVS/SVN/Git!

The last one has a close relative, the "1.x is featureless and out of date (but still gets security patches) and 2.x has been in alpha for three years now" projects. Just like the "it's in CVS" projects the bulk of interesting code for these tends to be in source control or in the 2.x.y.z.alpha23.tar.bz2 releases, and if you dare use the dev/alpha branch and find a problem with it and file a bug report you'd better be prepared to be chastised for not also submitting a patch...

And last but not least there are the "closed" projects which rarely accept patches from "outsiders", they have a dedicated group of developers who will tell you to write your own patch and submit it when there's a bug that's been around for over a year with all reports closed as "WILLNOTFIX" or "NOTABUG", and when you do it will be rejected only to have one of the "regular" developers submit an almost identical patch a few days or weeks later (yes, this has happened to me a couple of times, can you feel the bitterness?).

Re:How is this different? (2, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089652)

And last but not least there are the "closed" projects which rarely accept patches from "outsiders", they have a dedicated group of developers who will tell you to write your own patch and submit it when there's a bug that's been around for over a year with all reports closed as "WILLNOTFIX" or "NOTABUG", and when you do it will be rejected only to have one of the "regular" developers submit an almost identical patch a few days or weeks later (yes, this has happened to me a couple of times, can you feel the bitterness?).

Even if the code is open source, that's still plagiarism.

Re:How is this different? (5, Funny)

sunking2 (521698) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088712)

I agree. Sounds to me like they've fully embraced the Open Source mindset. They probably have to get rid of 75% of their documentation though.

Re:How is this different? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32088884)

Exactly; it's not an open-source project if you can learn about it without having to read reams of un-commented code.

Re:How is this different? (-1, Flamebait)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088922)

They probably have to get rid of 75% of their documentation though.

Leaving 99% of the remainder as a still largely useless pile of dung.

Re:How is this different? (3, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088762)

Microsoft has a forum

Ziiiiing!

Re:How is this different? (4, Funny)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089032)

No no no, that should be Biiiing!

Re:How is this different? (1)

rnturn (11092) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089872)

> that should be Biiiing! I was thinking it should be "Bazinga!"

Re:How is this different? (1)

rnturn (11092) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089938)

> that should be Biiiing!

I was thinking it should be "Bazinga!"

(Oops! Wrong format. Fixed that.)

Re:How is this different? (2, Insightful)

machwon (12734) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088782)

This one was supposedly run and supported by the biggest software company in the world, not by a high school student in his basement.

Re:How is this different? (4, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088868)

They made it open source so that they didn't have to support it.

Then when they stopped supporting it, the open source community went Huh?

Re:How is this different? (1)

forgottenusername (1495209) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088834)

do you mean sourceforget?

Re:How is this different? (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089382)

Hey at least it's out there if someone wants to pick it up and go.

That's the beauty of actual open source.

I saw a prime example of this lately. I recently migrated to Ubuntu from Windows. I used a download manager in Windows called FreedDownloadManager (http://www.freedownloadmanager.org/). It's OSS(GPL), but it's written with Win32 in mind, so porting it would just be a mess. I found a decent download manager for Linux called Downloader for X(D4X), but it's been abandoned. The source code IS available, but unfortunately it's under a custom license that doesn't allow derivative works.

As a result, even though the app mostly works, it needs a few tweaks here and there that are going to prevent me from using it. Right now I'm using KGet, but it clashes with my mostly GTK desktop and has a few of it's own quirks.

Result? Because of the restricted license, despite an existing app being 95% of where I need it to be, I've had to start coding a new one from scratch. If sourceforge had had a GPL'd but abandoned project already there, then I could have avoided the hassle.

Re:How is this different? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089842)

Are you not allowed to update D4X for personal use? Of course, making something that other people can use is always nice and saves someone else going through the same hassle.

Re:How is this different? (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32090072)

I don't think you're technically allowed to, though in reality regardless of license you can for all practical purposes modify something like that for personally use. Still though, I figure if I'm going to put in the effort anyways, I might as well publish it. Hence I started rewriting it in Mono (yeah, I know, but most of my GUI development experience is with Visual Studio as it's what I typically program with at work, so the transition to MonoDevelop is easier).

Re:How is this different? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32088984)

The difference is that the "dead" sourceforge projects are maintained by usually one person and that person has lost interest, or was satisfied with the code. On the other hand, Microsoft is a large corporation which should be able to maintain large projects in the long term.

Summary Misleading (5, Informative)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088640)

I know it's fun to bash Microsoft and all, but the source site here [microsoft.com] is not, in fact, dead. The other points in TFS might be valid, but I have doubts as to the poster's credibility. I believe this "figleaf" character may just be trying to score some free karma or jollies or something by inciting the standard "M$ sux" response.

Re:Summary Misleading (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32088696)

The other points in TFS might be valid, but I have doubts as to the poster's credibility.

Even if the statements about the blog and the forum are true, there's no requirement for open source projects to have active blogs and forums.

It IS appropriate for MS to keep their work going (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32089356)

It IS appropriate for MS to keep their work going. After all, it's a multi-billion-dollar corporation, not a slashdotter. If MS cannot find someone with some time to look after it, then they must not have enough people to keep up with commitments.

This means that MS must be going down the toilet.

Re:It IS appropriate for MS to keep their work goi (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32089626)

But they are doing that? The /. article was just written by an idiot who didn't check his shit and wrote bunch of bullshit without any reference.
asp.net MVC 2.0 sourcecode, dated 11 march 2010 http://aspnet.codeplex.com/releases/view/41742 [codeplex.com]
freshly updated MS blogs regarding asp.net http://weblogs.asp.net/ [asp.net]
forums regarding most MS technologies seems pretty much alive also http://forums.asp.net/ [asp.net]
etc...
seems to me everything is very much alive, unlike some other open source projects...

Re:Summary Misleading (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32088832)

1. It's true that the reference source site has been down for several days but now appears to be up again
2. It's also true that NOBODY from MS has been responding to questions about the lack of .Net 4.0 source code, or any other question for that matter about reference source

I'm not bashing MS in general; in fact, I make my living by developing solutions centered around MS technology. However, I'm extremely annoyed at the lack of proper maintenance of the reference source archive. Not only about the bits that have never made it there to begin with, but that almost a month after the release of .Net 4.0/VS 2010, there's still no code for .Net 4.0. !

Re:Summary Misleading (1)

RobDude (1123541) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089210)

Maybe this is a stupid question; but isn't getting the source a trivial task?

I thought there were free tools available that would turn .Net .DLLs into code?

Re:Summary Misleading (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089946)

Yes there are plenty of tools that use the reflector; which is thwarted by the obfuscator. Even if you can reflect the code you get from stripped libs wont have the original symbols so its pretty hard to work with.

Kinda like when you generate assembly from machine code. Oh sure you get the code but you are going have to go over it line by line to understand anything.

Re:Summary Misleading (0)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089232)

It's even worse with Apple. Sometimes you have to wait weeks between an OS X refresh and Darwin source release. And they're bound by the GPL on some of the stuff!

But that Wilde wannabe Fry gets to cheerlead FSF /and/ Apple, so I guess Stallman... wait, why is Stallman showing an unusual pusillanimity with Apple?

Re:Summary Misleading (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32089726)

But you do actually get your source releases, right? Like, it might not be on the timeframe you want, but you get them?

And not just the GPL stuff, but also all the BSD stuff? Including the kernel code?

Fucking Slashcocks and their mindless self-entitled whining.

Re:Summary Misleading (1)

Utopia (149375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089764)

1. It's true that the reference source site has been down for several days but now appears to be up again
2. It's also true that NOBODY from MS has been responding to questions about the lack of .Net 4.0 source code, or any other question for that matter about reference source

I'm not bashing MS in general; in fact, I make my living by developing solutions centered around MS technology. However, I'm extremely annoyed at the lack of proper maintenance of the reference source archive. Not only about the bits that have never made it there to begin with, but that almost a month after the release of .Net 4.0/VS 2010, there's still no code for .Net 4.0. !

The lack of of .Net 4.0 code bugs me too. But fortunately VS 2010 supports .Net 3.5 too, so its easy to figure out the issue by debugging using 3.5
When the reference site was down even that was possible.

Unless you are using the new concurrent stuff or other .Net 4.0 specific stuff, debugging in 3.5 works fine.
I used to clean the my symbols cache folder periodically., but I have figured out how valuable it can be when Microsoft site goes down.

Re:Summary Misleading (3, Insightful)

mpapet (761907) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088848)

I think Microsoft's goal is/was to pollute the term 'open source' to mean things friendly to Microsoft's practices like this read-only license.

The license cites the code available as "read only."

"Reference use" means use of the software within your company as a reference, in read only form, for the sole purposes of debugging your products, maintaining your products, or enhancing the interoperability of your products....

http://referencesource.microsoft.com/referencesourcelicense.aspx [microsoft.com]

Oh, and yes, Microsoft still sucks. In this case it's because their brand of misinformation is particularly toxic to innovation.
   

Re:Summary Misleading (4, Insightful)

RobDude (1123541) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089272)

Maybe I'm missing the point but I'm *glad* there is only one version of the .Net Framework 4.0

If the source was truly open, I'm sure someone, somewhere, would make something awesome, that I'd want to use, but it would require me using the forked (or whatever they call it) home-brew version that may or may not introduce instability into my application.

And when I took my problem online and said, 'WTF! I'm just doing System.Console.Writeline()' why doesn't this work!' it would lead to all sorts of confusion.

But yeah, I'm probably missing the point as my understanding of OpenSource is limited. I just don't see why you'd ever want to a modified version of the .Net Framework.

Re:Summary Misleading (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089944)

open source != Open Source. Look it up. One is a English term, another is a copyrighted term.

Re:Summary Misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32088914)

I agree, the title 'Microsoft .NET Libraries Not Acting "Open Source"' is completely loaded and misleading, because if you read the linked articles you will see that Microsoft never claimed to be embracing any open source strategies. They simply published the code to be used as a reference. This is why it is called "Reference Source", because it is purely there as an informative reference to use when one is trying to understand the .NET libraries or debug code that interacts with the libraries. All of the marketing, licensing, and publications regarding the Reference Source are in line with it being there only as a reference, and not as some sort of community supported open source project. Obviously the author of the post failed reading comprehension in school.

I personally have found the Reference Source to be an invaluable tool since often the source code is the best documentation for the library.

Re:Summary Misleading (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089038)

inciting the standard "M$ sux" response.

*pfft* Like that would work...

Re:Summary Misleading (2, Funny)

alfredos (1694270) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089060)

I know it's fun to bash Microsoft

Actually, "fun" is an overly simplistic definition of it. Actually, it's an art that has some of the features of a sport.

Re:Summary Misleading (2, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089252)

I believe

this "figleaf" character may just be trying to score some free karma or jollies or something by inciting the standard "M$ sux" response.

I get the idea he's hiding something, not sure why.

Re:Summary Misleading (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089548)

I get the idea he's hiding something, not sure why.

Or what.

Re:Summary Misleading (4, Informative)

Utopia (149375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089496)

They fixed it as soon as this story was posted. Tricky Microsoft!
Look at the forums. It was dead for more than a week.

Forking (1)

MC68040 (462186) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088652)

Maybe someone can answer this better than me, I've not had the time to read over the Microsoft license.
Would it be possible to (legally) fork the project from the latest available codebase? Not saying if anyone would want to do it or not, but if the code is out there that might give some possibilities?

Re:Forking (4, Informative)

Florian Weimer (88405) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088686)

No, it's not an open source license. You get to see the source code, but you have no rights beyond that. Preparing derivative works is not allowed.

I believe source code access functionality is now integrated into Visual Studio, so it is not surprising that the web site is not updated anymore.

Re:Forking (2, Informative)

vbraga (228124) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088844)

I believe source code access functionality is now integrated into Visual Studio, so it is not surprising that the web site is not updated anymore.

You're right. It's integrated on VS2008.

Tools -> Options -> Debugging -> Check "Enable .NET framework stepping".

Wait a while while VS2008 download the debugging symbols and you're done.

Re:Forking (2, Interesting)

Utopia (149375) | more than 4 years ago | (#32090080)

It works only if the reference code site is alive.
The site was dead for a week. I check it a few hours ago when debugging is Visual Studio.
Microsoft seems to have restarted the site when this story hit Slashdot!

Which means looking at it contaminates developers. (4, Insightful)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089150)

No, it's not an open source license. You get to see the source code, but you have no rights beyond that. Preparing derivative works is not allowed.

Which means that looking at it "contaminates" the developers with knowledge of proprietary code.

If this article were about the the code itself, rather than the lack of support on Microsoft's end, I'd hang an "itsatrap" tag on it.

IMHO we're better off if the site DOES go away.

Re:Which means looking at it contaminates develope (1)

TheFlaker (1684122) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089396)

1 - You think that everyone cares about starting other framework or whatever. 2 - Sometimes you are under fire and having the sources integrated is great. So at least for me, Id prefer if everything stays like it is.

Re:Forking (4, Funny)

value_added (719364) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089184)

No, it's not an open source license. You get to see the source code, but you have no rights beyond that.

I once knew a girl like that.

Re:Forking (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089420)

She gave you a DNA sample, but made you sign a license prohibiting cloning?

Re:Forking (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32089578)

I thing it IS open source (you can see the sources) but ISN'T free (you can't use it like you want) : it doesn't respect FOSS fundamentals. "Open source" doesn't mean "Free".

Bait and switch. (3, Insightful)

_the_bascule (740525) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088678)

Yup, bait and switch. "We're all warm and fluffy with open source, we're a safe alternative to java, honest, look." *sigh*

I Was With You Until... (2, Interesting)

Petersko (564140) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089498)

"We're all warm and fluffy with open source, we're a safe alternative to java, honest, look."

I was getting your point until you hit Java. After watching the litany of trainwrecks that is the expensive java experiment in our company, Microsoft IS a safe alternative. In fact, I'd rather replace all our "successful because they delivered" java projects with a group of elderly asians with abacuses... aba... abacii? That'd be a warm and fluffy alternative to Java.

In other areas of the company they've been delivering .Net projects successfully, so I'm hardpressed to defend Java. We hired expensive, proven guns, too. We didn't half-ass it.

Re:Bait and switch. (1)

TheFlaker (1684122) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089628)

ooookkkk. The word "reference" should give a hint, it is to be used as a reference when you are using the MS .Net framework in some development project. So, I do not understand what are we expecting from it.

What ever do they mean? (1)

jvkjvk (102057) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088692)

The reference code site is dead, the blog hasn't been updated in a year and a half, and no one from Microsoft responds to questions on the forum.

This sounds perfectly like most open source projects. I wonder what the exact percentage of dead to alive(and not in the parrot sense) projects there are on SourceForge, Freshmeat, et al. I wouldn't be suprised at least an 80/20 split.

 

Re:What ever do they mean? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32089018)

A dead SF project still has the repository. You can still access the code and do what you will with it.

Re:What ever do they mean? (3, Insightful)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089486)

I wonder what the exact percentage of largest software company in the world hosting an open source project to young, naive programmer thinking he can help by throwing up a sourgeforge page is? Comparing MS doing an open source project to most open source projects hardly seems fair.

To put it another way, if you compare MS to say Apache, Red Hat, Novell or Gnome then MS looks pretty bad at open source. Which, on the surface at least, is surprising because they do a much better job of hosting their MSDN content which is similar in scope to hosting a large open source project.
But it's actually not so surprising considering MS's schizophrenic attitude towards open source in general.

Acting very much like many open source projects (2, Insightful)

Fencepost (107992) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088698)

How many projects out there become the hot new thing for a week or so, then the primary person working on the project changes jobs / gets married / joins a commune and eventually people start saying "Well, I found this open source project that sounds right, but it looks like it's been dead since 2007."

Re:Acting very much like many open source projects (4, Insightful)

ircmaxell (1117387) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088942)

There's a huge difference. If you wanted to make a modification to an abandoned project, you could just fork it. Here, you can't. So you're tied to requesting the modification from MS... It's a similar theme to many OS projects, but it's not a similar situation...

Re:Acting very much like many open source projects (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32089720)

You can fork it, just keep it to yourself. Microsoft and developers want only ONE version of .NET 4.0.
That's the whole beauty of it... 100% backwards compatibility, no problems with requisites. When MS allows every bored fucktard to publish his own .NET framework, .NET loses all of it's meaning.

.net reflector (2, Informative)

ForexCoder (1208982) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088704)

If you need the source for .NET now, your best bet is .NET Reflector Free Edition (http://www.red-gate.com/products/reflector/)

Re:.net reflector (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088766)

which of course, is also the best way to see the source code for many other companies .net software, even if they didn't expect it to be quite so open :)

No coke - no posts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32088706)

Who would post to open source blog in Microsoft? Nobody, because it means no (Free) Coke!

Well, duh. (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088760)

They meant they wanted somebody else to maintain it.

Re:Well, duh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32089034)

It's called "Reference Source" because it is intended as a reference only, NOT to be modified, forked, or community maintained. It was not meant to be community maintained by anyone. MS never said it would be an open source project!!!! If you read any of the statements published by MS you'd know this, but you'd rather get your info from some random idiot on the internet without doing any fact checking for yourself.

Re:Well, duh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32089320)

Your post is just full of errors! Don't post replies to me that are so full of errors! It's NOT called "Reference Source" and is NOT intended as a reference, but to be modified, forked, and community maintained. It was MEANT to be community maintained by ANYONE. MS said it would be an OPEN SOURCE project!!!! If you read any of the statements published by MS you'd know this, but you'd rather get your info from some random idiot on the internet without doing any fact checking for yourself. (BTW, I hope you didn't read the GP's sig...)

Misleading (4, Interesting)

Vahokif (1292866) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088772)

That's the reference implementation, which is under a read-but-don't-touch-license. .NET itself is an open specification you can read whenever you want, and they recently made a legally binding promise not to sue anyone for using an alternate implementation (like Mono).

Open source quality/theft (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32088876)

First of all, there is the question of intellectual property. I don't see why Microsoft (or Apple, for that matter) should do *anything* to help open source. How many millions of dollars has the open source community stolen from Microsoft over the years through the violation of their patents? Microsoft has found literally hundreds of examples of Linux violating their patents [cnn.com] , and not a SINGLE Linux developer has come forward to apologize and offer recompense. Instead, Microsoft has been forced to seek out companies that are using Linux to get them to acknowledge the wrongs that the open source Linux people have committed against Microsoft.

Secondly, there is the question of quality. Open Source has largely FAILED to produce any software that is notably good. Linux is a terrible desktop OS, and marginal as a server. The GIMP pales in comparison to Photoshop. Open source codecs like ogg theora and vorbis are absolute garbage next to their closed source counterparts, etc. Microsoft really is perfectly justified in keeping as far away from the sinkhole of quality that open source represents.

Big chunks released under Apache license (4, Interesting)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088880)

Large parts of .NET, namely those that are using in the .NET Micro framework, have been released under the Apache license.

Re:Big chunks released under Apache license (1)

devent (1627873) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089462)

That parts are not "large" parts of .NET. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Micro_Framework [wikipedia.org]
>It also features a subset of the .NET base class libraries (about 70 classes with about 420 methods), a GUI framework loosely based on Windows Presentation Foundation, and additional libraries specific to embedded applications.
The whole .NET micro have just 320KBytes.

Re:Big chunks released under Apache license (1)

spikenerd (642677) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089602)

Large parts of .NET... have been released under the Apache license.

Wahoo! Now we can get .NET apps working to a large extent without having proprietary dependencies!

So.... (4, Funny)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088904)

Just like most open source projects!

::ducks::

Re:So.... (1)

Arimus (198136) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089116)

Was going to say just that - I can probably find several dozen oss sites that are just as up to date / live.

Re:So.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32089458)

You know one that seems 'dead' is zLib. You know the one EVERYONE uses. But the code has not been updated or improved or anything since mid 2007. Maybe everyone is using 7zip these days or something. But zlib just 'stopped'. At least it looks that way.

If there ever was one project that you could improve the world with *THAT* is the one to pick.

Say 10% better compression and 10% speed improvement and everyone would just start using it. I know that disk space is not quite at the premium it used to be...

Re:So.... (1)

Drinking Bleach (975757) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089666)

Maybe you can pick a better example, the zlib site [zlib.net] itself mentions more than one release just in the year 2010.

tag missing (1)

techpain (1781154) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088980)

business as usual?

Lousy post ... (3, Informative)

TheFlaker (1684122) | more than 4 years ago | (#32088986)

As SomeJoel has pointed ... the sources are there. Even wpf for the 3.5sp1 stuff (fairly new stuff) ... At least try with something more difficult to verify.

Profit Motive. (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089130)

Microsoft as a corporation is sworn to seek profit for their shareholders. Being entrenched in proprietary software a new business model is hard to push there. Do not expect Microsoft to ever work in the favor of Open Source unless there is a clear a profitable reason for them to do so. Expecting anything else is naive.

They are acting open source. (4, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089208)

No news in a year and a half, no source code, forum questions unanswered... sounds like the typical sourceforge project to me!

Re:They are acting open source. (1)

AaronLS (1804210) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089988)

What do you mean no source code? It's right there on the site for download. It's a reference, not an open source project.

Embrace, extend, extinguish? (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089216)

Microsoft announced it would make some of the .Net libraries 'open source' ... (now) The reference code site is dead, the blog hasn't been updated in a year and a half, and no one from Microsoft responds to questions on the forum.

Seems like a logical result to me, given the protagonist and antagonist in this story...

People here think .NET is Open Source? (3, Insightful)

Eirenarch (1099517) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089228)

So it seems like people here think tha MS wanted or at least promised .NET to become Open Source? How completely wrong. MS never said that and never wanted it. They just released the code so .NET devs could debug it. They still can debug it through Visual Studio integration. Microsoft never wanted to contribute .NET source to the community and to allow forks and I believe that I speak to the majority of the .NET developers when I say that I don't want anyone but Microsoft messing with .NET's code let alone creating forks.

Re:People here think .NET is Open Source? (-1, Flamebait)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089360)

Hello,

You certainly don't speak for me. I prefer working with Mono precisely for that reason.

And what happened to those who got fooled by them (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089502)

i wonder. i wonder what those who jumped on the bandwagon because of their 'os move' back then.

Comma? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32089532)

Since then Microsoft has reneged on its promise.

Since "then Microsoft" has reneged on its promise, what's going to happen? Seriously, commas aren't that hard.

Steve Balmer saz... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32089678)

HAHAHAHAHAHA SUCKERS!

whats all the fuss? (1)

ormico (1226940) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089700)

The web site is up. I'm looking at it now. If you go to the list of source code you can download, .net 3.5 SP1 is on there. .NET 4 beta2 and RC are on the list, although the download link is disabled. Looks like it is probably still being reviewed before being released, otherwise why would it even be on the list? I don't see what all the fuss is about. As or the blog not being updated, if there hasn't been a code drop since the last .net update, then what would they have that they felt like talking about? Just my 2 cents.

"Source Available" versus "Open Source" (1)

kervin (64171) | more than 4 years ago | (#32089818)

It's too easy to bash Microsoft to have to sink to this.

I don't see anywhere on the blog article linked mentioning .Net is Open Source. In fact I did a browser "find" and the first reference to Open Source is a reply in the comments section.

Scott Gu mentions that the source code is available, which it is, and has been ever since.

Also even if Scott had mention that, how would that qualify as much fanfare. Not a peep from Micrsoft PR.

Finally, since that reference release 2 years ago. Microsoft has released the entire .Net Micro as Open Source [msdn.com] , help out Mono in development, and promised not to sue open source implementations. Not quite Open Source, but great strides for a company that was so afraid of the process a few years back.

KDawson gives MS bashing a bad name. ( I think that's going to be my new sig)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>