Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Is the CodePlex Foundation Truly Independent Now?

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the what-is-that-again dept.

Microsoft 123

Glyn Moody writes "Microsoft created its CodePlex, 'an online collaborative software development portal,' four years ago, as the latest in a string of attempts to play nicely with open source. Well, maybe not: Microsoft saw the open source software projects it hosted there as reflecting 'the open community-building spirit of Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative.' In September last year, it tried again, launching the CodePlex Foundation, 'a forum in which open source communities and the software development community can come together with the shared goal of increasing participation in open source community projects,' and not to be confused with CodePlex.com, 'a Microsoft owned and staffed forge that encourages the development of open source software based on Microsoft technology.' The only problem is that all the funding for the CodePlex Foundation still comes from Microsoft. But the new Technical Director of the CodePlex Foundation, Stephen Walli, thinks it can become truly independent of Microsoft, open to all companies to create open source software for any platform using only OSI-approved licenses. Will the CodePlex Foundation take its place alongside existing foundations addressing this sector, like Apache and Eclipse, but complementary to them? Or is it forever doomed to be ignored by the open source world because of its origins?"

cancel ×

123 comments

Shouldn't this be in Ask Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32664702)

If you're going to ask a question in the headline, shouldn't it be posted in the Ask Slashdot section?
I wonder why the word "rhetorical" never came up in my studies at school... do you know why?
Will I get modded down?

Re:Shouldn't this be in Ask Slashdot? (1, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665886)

Leading question, rhetorical question, whatever, the fact is that everyone knows what Codeplex really is, so at the end of the day, only Microsoft shills seem particularly interesting in pushing it, or using it. The open source community really has no need for yet another trojan horse from Redmond.

No it isn't. Now let's get back to work. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32664734)

Codeplex was created to undermine the open source and more particularly the free software movement. Well, they launched their Tet offensive and it was massively funded, but it failed.

They'll have to try something else.

Re:No it isn't. Now let's get back to work. (2, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32664770)

Yep, "in a string of attempts to play nicely with open source" sounds like "in a string of attempts to nicely play open source" but it's not really the same thing.

Re:No it isn't. Now let's get back to work. (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#32666172)

what part of embrace extend extinguish does "attempts to play nicely with open source" fit in again?

oh yes, clearly, we must be ignorant and have forgotten? Surely the leopard has changed their spots, huh?

Has anyone seen MS ever do something pro open source/pro free software? The answer is no, and it never will happen either. All they do is try to cover their tail when they screw up, as is common.

Re:No it isn't. Now let's get back to work. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32665218)

exactly. We still see it today, if it runs on Windows and something else which Microsoft sees as a threat, then it is a threat to Windows and a threat to Microsoft. Codeplex was designed so Windows developers who liked the idea of collaborating with other developers on projects had an option other than going out to the cross platform, or even Linux only, forges. Provide a place for the Windows developers to look first in hopes they'll stay there and not wander out into learning how the other half lives and maybe find out that they like how that other half lives, works, plays and jump ship.

Microsoft Codeplex will always be this way unless they hand it off to an open group to run. It will remain Microsoft based and tied even if they say it is not and Microsoft based people are running it.

Re:No it isn't. Now let's get back to work. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32665880)

I had actually forgotten that codeplex even existed until seeing it mentioned here on Slashdot today. Basically, codeplex is a home for Windows zealots who kind of like the idea of open source and want to dabble in it but refuse to leave the comforting confines of their OS of choice. So now, they have somewhere to hang out. It serves MS's purposes as it gives them something to hopefully take a little of the wind out of the sails of cross-platform real open source development. Personally, I think it a bit absurd to build open source programs on top of proprietary software technology as alluded to in the summary.

tl;dr *yawn*

Re:No it isn't. Now let's get back to work. (1)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 4 years ago | (#32666662)

A lot of Microsoft's open source projects, including projects like MEF, build on Mono and were subtly patched but not announced to be fixed as such. So they aren't "announcing to the world" that it works on Mono, but their developers are making sure it's compatible.

Besides, what does it matter which platform your software layer resides on? If you think it's absurd to build OSS on proprietary software, then I suppose you only write software and packages for the most free distro, depending on your definition of free?

Re:No it isn't. Now let's get back to work. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32666880)

Besides, what does it matter which platform your software layer resides on? If you think it's absurd to build OSS on proprietary software, then I suppose you only write software and packages for the most free distro, depending on your definition of free?

I write software for open platforms for the same reason I never wrote anything in Visual Basic 6 [bitwisemag.com] , never bought an mp3 player that "Played for Sure" [microsoft-watch.com] , and will never submit an app to the "App Store" [wordpress.com] .

Common sense, man. Grow some.

Re:No it isn't. Now let's get back to work. (1)

wtbname (926051) | more than 4 years ago | (#32667754)

I had actually forgotten that SourceForge even existed until seeing it mentioned here on Slashdot today. Basically, SourceForge is a home for Open Source/*nix/FS zealots who kind of like the idea of open source and want to dabble in it but refuse to leave the comforting confines of their OS of choice. So now, they have somewhere to hang out. It serves the zealot's purposes as it gives them something to hopefully take a little of the wind out of the sails of the Windows stack of software. Personally, I think it a bit absurd to build open source programs and criticize Microsoft for giving people a free place to build Open Source software on top of their OS and platforms of choice.

tl;dr *yawn*

Re:No it isn't. Now let's get back to work. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32668054)

I had actually forgotten that SourceForge even existed

Codeplex: 16,000
Sourceforge: 200,000 projects

You fail at trolling.

Re:No it isn't. Now let's get back to work. (1)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 4 years ago | (#32666626)

Err? I didn't recall seeing anything even close to what you describe.

As far as I can tell, they're just trying to foster open source development on Windows because it's a developer issue. Some developers prefer and only engage in open source development, causing them to gravitate to Linux, BSD, etc. Microsoft hates losing developers, because users, slowly but surely, follow them and where the good applications are.

It's not a grand "Tet offensive". And it was anything but massively funded.

Who cares? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32664742)

Ignoring open source never doomed anyone.

Codeplex continues to provide useful source to people developing on Microsoft platforms.

Only the religious zealots care.

Re:Who cares? (1)

dwiget001 (1073738) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665492)

Another fine example of Microsoft "Technology Evangelist" dollars at work.

Yeah. Now we see the truth. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32664748)

Or is it forever doomed to be ignored by the open source world because of its origins?

In other words: The OSS community has such a stick up their butts that they can't see the forest for the trees.

Re:Yeah. Now we see the truth. (5, Insightful)

redbeard55 (1002526) | more than 4 years ago | (#32664848)

In other words MS fanboys are ignorant of MS's history of backstabbing any competitor including one they have partnered with. Actually, especially the ones they have partnered with. CodePlex Foundation should be ignored by the open source community until MS has absolutely no possible influence within the organization.

Re:Yeah. Now we see the truth. (3, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665140)

Actually it doesn't really matter a bit what MSFT has done in the past, as they like any other company has to obey the license. If all the foundation has is OSI approved licenses, like Apache, BSD, Mozilla, etc then it shouldn't matter to you, I, or anyone else except zealots who pays the bills, as they have to obey the license. Sure in the future they could decide to take any project they own and go closed source with it, but so can the writer/owner of ANY software, and they can't close the previous version, therefor you can always fork.

In the end these projects just show that like Apple MSFT is beginning to see how they can leverage FOSS in certain situations to help themselves as well as anyone else. Nobody expects Apple to give up their proprietary bits, why should MSFT? In the end they have to obey the license or risk being sued (and the resulting bad PR) no different than any other corp.

Re:Yeah. Now we see the truth. (2, Insightful)

fwarren (579763) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665894)

Still all is based on Microsoft Technologies. So if you design and "Open" killer application in VB dotNet it is not a threat. VB dotNet only runs on Windows. To properly implement it in Mono, you need the odd bits that Microsoft owns the patents on.

The idea is that you develop cool projects that the community can contribute to, but only the coolest of the cool and the best of the best will be able to run on Windows. That's what they call open source.

I would call it a failure. How long did it take source forge to be successful? 6 months? 12 months? Even after 48 months and Microsoft pouring money into it, it is still a failure.

But why should it not be. If I want to write real open source apps for linux or to be cross platform, I am going to use some "open" technology that makes sourceforge a better home than CodePlex. If I wanted to write something that was going to be Windows only, why not make it shareware, or a real paid for product? Which again would negate CodePlex.

Re:Yeah. Now we see the truth. (1)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 4 years ago | (#32666710)

I like how you specifically chose the CLR language that doesn't work on Mono, and then said implied it's part of Microsoft's grand plan.

Hint: The vast majority of code on Codeplex, the code sharing site, is in C#. And Codeplex Foundation is an open source outreach program that will do work behind the scenes like invest in projects, form partnerships, whatever, but not write code.

Re:Yeah. Now we see the truth. (1)

fwarren (579763) | more than 4 years ago | (#32667602)

Ok, call me paranoid. I just picked one of the major languages on the CLR. The same holds true of the other. In real life VB and C# run on the CLR. And not every facet of C#, VB or the CLR is free enough that I can be sure anything I write in it to be cross platform today does not violate some MS patent which MS will at some point later choose to enforce.

It is there right to enforce those patents. It is my right to choose a language and platform that will not land me in patent enforcement hell someday.

It's all "open" at CodePlex, except for the patent issues, NDA's, ownership of the code, what I can do with code I find there, etc. Microsoft means something different than what I mean when I think "I want to contribute to an 'Open' source project"

Which is why CodePlex is spurned. After 4 years they have 16,000 projects listed, not all active. Just sourceforge alone has over 230,000 with at least 80,000 projects active, or with beta code you can look at and use.

Are there any real success stories at CodePlex? I have not heard of any. Maybe next time I need a program I will do a CodePlex search for something. Which should be interesting, 80% of what I need will have to run in a Linux Environment.

Re:Yeah. Now we see the truth. (2, Insightful)

redbeard55 (1002526) | more than 4 years ago | (#32666034)

Again, look at the history of MS's dealing with their partners with which they have had contracts with. How many times have they been in court and lost. Of course you need deep pockets to take MS to court even if you are right. MS is no friend to open-source and if they can screw a software developer they will, based on past history. They are not happy with a slice of the pie if they can take the whole pie. They still have not come close to changing their spots . . .

They still have leverage (4, Insightful)

pavon (30274) | more than 4 years ago | (#32666100)

The point of codeflex is to get people to develop open source software that runs on Microsoft's Platforms - desktop applications using WPF.NET, web applications using ASP.NET, windows mobile 7 applications using Silverlight, rich web environments using Silverlight. For desktop/phone applications this make sense - free high-quality applications improve the appeal of the operating system. For web applications, the only reason they want this is to increase market share of their proprietary technology. In both cases they still control the platform.

Developers whose sole intention is to write for Microsoft's platforms alone, probably shouldn't have any problems, because MS would be shooting themselves by hindering them. However for developers that write applications in .NET/Silverlight thinking that the existence of Mono/Moonlight means that it is a great cross-platform tool, could easily be backstabbed by Microsoft if they ever change their stance on patents.

Re:Yeah. Now we see the truth. (3, Insightful)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 4 years ago | (#32666160)

then it shouldn't matter to you, I, or anyone else except zealots who pays the bills

Based on MS's historical disdain for open source with the current CEO Steve Ballmer even going so far as to refer to Linux as a cancer [theregister.co.uk] , I think it extremely naive and presumptuous to refer to people suspicious of their motives as just zealots implying that their caution is without merit. Contrarily, I think anything other than an attitude of extreme skepticism is foolhardiness approaching absurdity.

Furthermore, any license which by its very nature being a legal document is open to ambiguity and interpretation by a court and can very well be used in unpredictable ways to damage open source and to completely downplay this possibility in general and in the case of MS in particular especially in light of their very direct statements against open source is extremely arrogant and misinformed on your part.

Re:Yeah. Now we see the truth. (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665260)

If open source is to forest and trees
then MS is to the BP oil leak.
the only interest MS has in open source is to muddy the water.

If MS was really serious... (3, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#32664756)

They could endow a trust fund for SourceForget.net. And if they had ideas for a better forge, they could make code submissions to SourceForge.net.

Re:If MS was really serious... (1)

Giometrix (932993) | more than 4 years ago | (#32664828)

"They could endow a trust fund for SourceForget.net. And if they had ideas for a better forge, they could make code submissions to SourceForge.net."

Why? Why can there only be one open source code repository?

Further, ultimately, as a developer, do you even care what repository the code comes from? I just google what I need, and wherever I land, I land.

Re:If MS was really serious... (4, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#32664918)

Why? Why can there only be one open source code repository?

I'm not saying there should only be one public forge. I'm just saying that would be one way for MS to get away from people's distrust in anything they back. Because I think most people would trust SF.net to not be corrupted the kind of thing I proposed.

Further, ultimately, as a developer, do you even care what repository the code comes from?

No. But as a project contributor, maybe. If this was the MS of the 1990's, I wouldn't trust a forge they owned one tiny bit - there would almost certainly be a trap hidden in the legalese. Nowadays, I'm not sure.

But here's another way to look at it: aside from branding, what might MS's motives be for setting this thing up? Based on their past actions, it's pretty clear that they're not angels.

Re:If MS was really serious... (1)

ubersoldat2k7 (1557119) | more than 4 years ago | (#32664930)

Right... I don't like SourceForge at all. Much prefer Launchpad or Google Code.

Re:If MS was really serious... (2, Informative)

kikito (971480) | more than 4 years ago | (#32664982)

Sourceforge's engine is closed source.

I asked.

You can't make "code submissions" to it.

Re:If MS was really serious... (2, Informative)

lorenzo.boccaccia (1263310) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665296)

they opened it a while ago
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/01/14/1223213

and closed it again after some time.
I think an open source community driven competitor started using that code and then got killed or something, can't remember for sure.

Re:If MS was really serious... (2, Insightful)

guruevi (827432) | more than 4 years ago | (#32664996)

The thing with Microsoft is that nothing you create based on their 'technologies' can truly be open. The Shared Source license is likewise not a very 'open' or 'free' (both in speech and in beer) license. The problem with Microsoft is that they have used their financial and patent weight against open source in the past and will probably continue doing so. If Microsoft really want, they can revoke all their permissions and promises at any point in time and all projects based on the Shared Source License would become closed.

What Microsoft needs to do to become open as you say is to support existing open initiatives (which SourceForge is a part of) and license the building blocks of their software (.NET/Mono) and patents more permissively. A truly good initiative would be to donate their patents in a legally binding trust fund (none of the 'we promise we won't unless it benefits us') that isn't managed by them and truly make their software more open.

Examples:
Active Directory: It's basically LDAP + Kerberos, please remove the proprietary shill around it so it's easier to use clients that are not Windows (for a good example: Apple Open Directory)
SMB: We have reverse engineered it for a while. It's simple, just open it or give the specs to the Samba team and stop changing crap between Windows versions so it keeps working. .NET: Mono is an open implementation but is always behind. Open it up and release the patents on it so we can actually use Mono without fear of having it pulled within a couple of years.
POSIX: Just do it right, you can keep Windows closed.

Re:If MS was really serious... (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665212)

They could endow a trust fund for SourceForget.net

I wish I could simply forget SourceForge.net

Re:If MS was really serious... (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 4 years ago | (#32667330)

I wish I could simply forget SourceForge.net

Why would that be?

Re:If MS was really serious... (1)

discord5 (798235) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665454)

SourceForget.net

What a splendid idea. A source revision control system hooked up straight to /dev/null, with a webinterface. FUND IT!

Re:If MS was really serious... (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 4 years ago | (#32666124)

They did this ~ 10 years ago. The result was windows ME.

Re:If MS was really serious... (2, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665460)

So could Google - but no one seems to be bitching about Google Code.

Re:If MS was really serious... (2, Informative)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 4 years ago | (#32667492)

So could Google - but no one seems to be bitching about Google Code.

Google [google.com] has been a [android.com] great [chromium.org] friend [google.com] of open source. They have earned and continue to earn a great deal of trust and respect from the open source and free software community.

Compare [theregister.co.uk] to the current CEO of Microsoft and I think it will be clearer why Microsoft needs to do more.

Re:If MS was really serious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32666278)

But SourceForge sucks.

I had an account there but canceled it when SourceForge caved to the US gov and banned Cuba. I have friends in Cuba, eh! When SourceForge came to their senses and reversed their decision, I tried to get my account reactivated but they wouldn't do that. Really odd - the guy at SF I talked to said they technically could, but chose not to.

Oh well, another abandoned and outdated project page on SF. Certainly not the only one.

Let me get this straight (3, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32664782)

An organization that wants to make open source products based off Microsoft will only get more Open Source Cred if they separate from Microsoft?

It seems like Microsoft is stuck in a position to make no concession. You don't like Microsoft. You'd like it a bit more if it were friendlier to Open Source. Microsoft starts an Open Source Initiative. It doesn't quite live up to Expectations. Now, the only way this new initiative can redeem itself is to become independent of Microsoft.

Wouldn't then Microsoft NOT have an open source initiative, and put them back at square one? Does becoming independent of Microsoft allow them to better work on Microsoft code?

Re:Let me get this straight (4, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32664854)

Microsoft eventually wants .NET to be competitive with the Java platform.

They know that Java has a massive, massive advantage in terms of OSS 3rd party library availability. As mentioned in the article, this comes from high profile Java OSS projects like Apache's Jakarta, Eclipse and others.

So Codeplex is their attempt at getting a similar ball rolling for .NET. We'll see if it succeeds, I doubt it will catch on in a similar fashion though, .NET is doomed to niche Microsoft operating systems.

Re:Let me get this straight (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32664890)

What the fuck Linux cock are you riding? "Niche Microsoft operating systems"? More people code in .NET than even use Linux at all.

Re:Let me get this straight (2, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32664946)

I assume you must be one of the codeplex people.

Good luck and GG! ;)

Re:Let me get this straight (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665032)

More people code in .NET than even use Linux at all.

First and foremost, he never mentions Linux. He mentions Open Source, but surprisingly, open source is not limited to Linux. *GASP* I know.

And if you are going to compare, at least pick something comparable. Like .NET to Java like he does. I've met a lot more people who know Java than .NET - Though on top of that, I've seen even more C#. But that's just me.

Re:Let me get this straight (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665330)

I've met a lot more people who know Java than .NET - Though on top of that, I've seen even more C#.

I'm confused by this. You do know that C# is .NET, right?

Re:Let me get this straight (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665514)

Not really. C# is a language like any other - it's just the best known implementation is for .NET. If you wanted to, you could write a C# compiler that uses precisely zero .NET, and it'd still be a compiler for C#.

Plus C# is used for Mono and GTK#, neither of which are .NET. Mono implements the same stuff true, but it's not .NET.

Re:Let me get this straight (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665578)

To me, at this point what you're saying is technically true but in any practical sense... not really.

Kind of like saying that people don't need to breathe to live -- technically, they could get their blood oxygenated any number of ways.

Probably, 99.9%+ of people writing C# code today are using .NET. For any practical purpose it's not unreasonable to assume that if someone knows more C# devs than Java devs, they also know more .NET devs than Java devs.

Re:Let me get this straight (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665748)

99.9% is a little high - I'd say more like 99.8% :P

Re:Let me get this straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32668126)

You guys are both retards. 100% of people writing C# today are using .NET.

Re:Let me get this straight (1)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665932)

The OP mentions "niche Microsoft operating systems", which places him/her firmly into the linux loony camp. There's nothing wrong with Linux, but believing that the company that still has 60% of the server market and has an even higher percentage of the desktop is "niche" either means the he/she has never left the server room of a bank, or is a loony.

I've coded in .NET and I've coded in JEE, there are pluses and minuses to both.

That said, the biggest benefit that Java has isn't so much the open source libraries(there's plenty of open source .NET stuff as well), but the lack of corporate conflict. For example, JPA is(while relatively new) vastly superior to the ORM models available in .NET(even if LINQ is just plain awesome). A lot of the reason for that superiority is that Oracle provides(and provided even before they owned Sun) JDBC drivers which don't require an Oracle client for free. They'll never do that for Microsoft because Microsoft is a competitor in a way that Sun never was.

The interesting question will be how long this sort of thing lasts now that it's Oracle who owns Java and not Sun. If conflict results in IBM or one of the other big players forking Java, then Java is done.

Re:Let me get this straight (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32666414)

60% of the server market, are you high or is this a study from ages ago?

Re:Let me get this straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32668670)

60% sounds ballpark to me. Pretty much every business I've worked with outside of web hosting has had many more Windows servers than any other platform. At my current employer it's about 3:1. Like it or not, Windows is the dominant business platform.

Re:Let me get this straight (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32665598)

Linux = Opensource, Opensource != Linux

Now that we got that out of the way... He means that .Net is just not very suitable for open source en cross platform development. In Java, I can use swing, hibernate and other stuff and just assume it will work on other platforms. Usually this doesn't cause any issues if your application is coded decently. However in C# en .NET a lot of useful and sometimes essential functionality is only available in Windows.* namespaces and libraries. These are not available in other implementations. This makes it very hard to build stuff in .NET that also works on Mac and *gasp* Linux. Personally I am also of the opinion that both offline and online C# and .NET documentation is bloated, filled with walls-of-text, with class documentation spread over multiple pages, and generally a pain in the ass, but others may disagree with me.

I think the popularity of C# is in a lot of ways related to it being the 'new thing' and XAML and WPF are nice buzzwords for those who don't have to work with those monstrosities. C# is in some ways easier to grasp than Java but horribly inadequate in other ways.

Re:Let me get this straight (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665436)

Microsoft eventually wants .NET to be competitive with the Java platform.

I'm curious by what standard you think it isn't. Certainly each has its advantages and disadvantages, and there's a lot of work for both out there.

But that being said, as someone who's spent years developing professionally with each, I'd say the list in your .sig is largely slanted/inaccurate/dubious, so, maybe you're just a guy who really likes Java.

Re:Let me get this straight (0, Troll)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665520)

I'm biased as fuck.

But I don't think that takes away from the fact that .NET adoption is 1/10 that of Java or less nor from the fact that .NET OSS adoption is probably less than 1/10th the size of Java's.

Nor the fact that it's in Microsoft's interest to do so, nor the fact that this is probably an attempt to change that.

Nors for everybody!

Re:Let me get this straight (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665720)

Every time this comes up in discussion I actually wonder to myself who is actually using Java, where do these statistics come from?

I have had good exposure to two fairly large UK web design/development and bespoke software markets in the UK (South West/West/Bristol and South East/East/London/Anglia) and I have to say its all either PHP, Python or Perl, or its .Net. Out of all of our actual competitors, not one is offering Java as a platform.

I think the statistics being used by people like yourselves are portraying a false sense of what the market place actually looks like - when it comes to earning money, .Net will certainly bring in the pennies with no issues, we aren't struggling for business and we certainly aren't seeing a larger market wanting or asking for Java based solutions.

Re:Let me get this straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32669120)

I sometimes get to talk to web programmers, and then I often get the impression that they think web development is representative of the whole world of programming. Let me tell you: it's not. It's a tiny part, really.

When working in the "real" programming world, it's pretty obvious that even PHP+C#/NET combined is much less than what is written in Java daily. But web developers are somewhat isolated from the rest, so they often assume a good overview over what is in fact a niche.
Maybe it's the low entry barrier, because everyone can get started with PHP+HTML with an afternoon, but while it seems to non-techs that there's an awful lot of web devs, they're just a minority.

Now please don't take offense at this, I've got nothing against web devs, I'm writing some CGI/perl myself from time to time, but some of them should really widen their horizon...

Re:Let me get this straight (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665914)

I'm biased as fuck.

Fair enough. I respect you for not having any illusions about that.

I don't know that I'd say .NET adoption is 1/10 of Java's -- in some markets (e.g. phones), definitely, and in the open source world, probably, but in general that doesn't jive with what I've seen in the market. But then, the work I mostly do is of the "writing custom apps (sometimes web, sometimes console, sometimes services, etc.) for business" and I don't have great knowledge of adoption outside of that space.

If nothing else, you have to love that competition with .NET -- in terms of features if not adoption -- has helped force Java to improve.

Re:Let me get this straight (1)

LinuxAndLube (1526389) | more than 4 years ago | (#32666354)

101 Reasons why Java is better than .NET - http://helpdesk-software.ws/it/29-04-2004.htm [helpdesk-software.ws]

This article is completely outdated. A signature like this makes it hard to take you seriously.

Re:Let me get this straight (0, Flamebait)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32666392)

It's still quite accurate.

Re:Let me get this straight (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32666436)

Show me the .Net for Solaris, Linux or Mac.

Re:Let me get this straight (0)

miguel (7116) | more than 4 years ago | (#32666604)

Not .NET, but close enough and open source for Solaris, Linux and Mac downloads is available here:

http://www.go-mono.com/mono-downloads/download.html [go-mono.com]

Re:Let me get this straight (5, Informative)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665008)

Microsoft's unfriendliness to Open Source has very little to do with them releasing any, or hosting code repositories.

The unfriendliness is expressed in terms of vague threats using software patents, attempts to derail implementation in various places, suspicious licensing deals like with Novell and so on.

All that has to go for me to start changing my mind. Until that happens, I'm not touching CodePlex with a 10 foot pole, and consider it completely irrelevant at best, and some sort of trap at worst.

Re:Let me get this straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32665572)

Mod parent up.

I too, since it's inception, have "consider it completely irrelevant at best, and some sort of trap at worst".

Microsoft just wants to try to embrace and extend OSS. I'd rather avoid all that by simply not hugging them.

Re:Let me get this straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32665114)

Profile of a OSS Zealot:
Thinks M$ is bad because M$ is big huh company lots of money, eats little children;
Linux rocks, every OS steals code from linux, you to xBSD, that network stack is ours;
GPL is the one and only opensource license, everything else must be compatible;
Anything thats not copyleft is not free;
Freedom is a word created by the FSF, and no one has the right to redefine it;

Well applying this principles to CodePlex we have:
CodePlex is bad because it was founded by M$, and is funded by them, also they use non GPL-Compatible licenses hence they promote the absence of freedom and proprietary software. To redeem itself CodePlex must abandon its "mother" and go commando into the OSS world, scattering even more the funding of OSS(this part was added since the common zealot does not understand economy because it is a capitalist notion).

Re:Let me get this straight (2, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#32666060)

CodePlex may or may not be bad, but Microsoft's history of attacks on open source over the last fifteen years means I'd never use anything they offered. Sorry, maybe that's biased, but I tend to think of it as being cautious and rational.

Re:Let me get this straight (1)

fwarren (579763) | more than 4 years ago | (#32667214)

Profile of a OSS Zealot:
Thinks M$ is bad because M$ is big huh company lots of money, eats little children;
Linux rocks, every OS steals code from linux, you to xBSD, that network stack is ours;
GPL is the one and only opensource license, everything else must be compatible;
Anything thats not copyleft is not free;
Freedom is a word created by the FSF, and no one has the right to redefine it;

Profile of an OSS Realist:

Think Microsoft has a track record of looking out for its stockholders and has done so by abusively using its position as a monopoly.

Linux is a good OS, which I actually prefer over Windows. Every OS wants to borrow code and concepts from others. You can "borrow" concepts from Linux and not be sued. The same does not hold true for MS or MacOS X.

GPL is a very useful open source license. If you want to come to the biggest open source party out there, you need to be able to dance with the GPL. If you don't want to, fine. You just cant use GPL'd code. You will have to buy it elsewhere or write it yourself. Also don't expect folks to come along and improve your code for you if it is not GPL. The GPL is a free invitation for people to borrow your code and to improve it. If you choose not to leverage the power of the GPL, that is fine with me.

Define your terms. The freedom we are interested in here is the freedom to have access to the code and to be able to modify and use it and will remain that way so that it can not be revoked. Any code that does not live up to that standard is not "free" in every sense. Again, you get to decide what you think is Free (xBSD) and I get to decide what I think is free (GPL).

When someone who has chosen to invest in GPL software talks of freedom, a good definition can be found at the FSF. Take a look at Microsofts definition of "Genuine" or "Open". You have to understand their terms to know what you are getting. Same goes here, those terms have been staked out since the mid 1980s. When I talk to someone about software freedom we both know what we are talking about. Microsoft (among others) would like to redefine those terms. I don't get the right to say that xcalc is a "windows application" because it runs on Xwindows. When I say "windows application" it is commonly understood to mean it will run on Microsoft Windows. In the same way Free Software and Software Freedom has a common meaning and you will get flack if you come along and try to redefine what it means.

Re:Let me get this straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32667578)

Since when did you all starting getting internet access in the insane asylum?

Re:Let me get this straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32665324)

but if one of the goals were to provide a place where Microsoft software and APIs were promoted then wouldn't it still be a win for Microsoft? Like always, most of what Microsoft does is to keep developers tied to Windows and that includes how they market to them( developers ) and how they appear to them( developers ).

developers, developers, developers.

My belief is that even a separate Codeplex is still a Microsoft focused project. Think of all those companies who'll tell you they are a Microsoft shop. They are living inside of that walled garden and noticing how lush the gardens have become outside of their walled garden. They want to play out there but Microsoft only lets them look out through colored Windows. Codeplex gives them a place to believe they are outside but they really are not.

Re:Let me get this straight (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665540)

Or, as a car analogy: MS/Windows is a car, and the OSS world is other cars. CodePlex is a roofbox on the MS/Win car.

It's A Trap (4, Insightful)

twmcneil (942300) | more than 4 years ago | (#32664898)

While it's easy to find any number of lazy, greedy jerks who simply want to to profit unjustly off the honest work of open source developers, MS is not in that category. MS wants to kill open source utterly and completely. Do not ever forget that.

Re:It's A Trap (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665304)

Yes knife the baby and cut off the oxygen supply for the next generation.

Re:It's A Trap (2, Informative)

RaceProUK (1137575) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665548)

I doubt it - MS still makes the majority of their profit on Windows and Office. Keeping devs tied to Windows keeps that lucrative stream going, regardless of whether those devs are writing OSS.

Re:It's A Trap (1)

oakgrove (845019) | more than 4 years ago | (#32667640)

No. MS might want a little good PR to rub off by encouraging a little open source development here and there but if suddenly all third party windows software went open source overnight, they would have a conniption. If that happened, how much trouble would it be to just port that software to $PLATFORM_OF_CHOICE and leave Windows?

wont float. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32664924)

lets get it straight ; open source was created by and developed around open source software. open communities. independent. we were here first, and we are many. we dont like closed or semi closed source stuff. we especially dont like corporations which try to 'close' the 'open' by mimicking 'open', so that they can profit. we wont play along. if we dont play along, it wont succeed. and for us to play along, you need to be really open. cydonia over. * ppkhhhhhhhh *

Re:wont float. (2, Informative)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665302)

FYI, apostraphes aren't just for quoting words for no apparent reason, they're also used in contractions.

Re:wont float. (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 4 years ago | (#32666424)

*You* "can" 'emphasise' a $comment$ any ^way^ you like ......

But speaking in "airquotes" can be annoying ....

Re:wont float. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32665650)

Do you have a coherent version of this comment that you could post? I think I might find your opinion interesting if it were possible to render it in standard English.

Re:wont float. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32666870)

ehehe eheheh ehehaha ahaha ahah ahah haha hahahahaha hah haha ha ha ... haha .... ha....... heh .......

Firefox (4, Insightful)

ubersoldat2k7 (1557119) | more than 4 years ago | (#32664966)

Maybe they should start with a proper website that works on non-MSIE browsers.

Re:Firefox (1)

transporter_ii (986545) | more than 4 years ago | (#32666610)

I know I will probably get flamed for this, but as someone who just developed some .NET projects (it was the right tool for the job), I did so using Firefox almost exclusively for testing. Note that every component used was a straight .NET component, no third party anything. One day I fired up IE 8 just to see what it looked like. There were things broke all over IE that "just worked" in Firefox (w/ the .net plugin).

On top of all the broken things in IE...the most annoying thing about IE is that links are tied to the navigation sound in Windows when clicked. Yes, that can be turned off, but most people don't.

I'm no MS fan at all, but I can't see exactly how they dropped the ball so bad on IE. I don't know, maybe that is a good thing?

 

Re:Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32668922)

Ditto. I do /a lot/ of ASP.NET development. All of it is developed with Firefox and tested in IE afterwards.

There is nothing about .NET that makes it more compatible with IE than other browsers. Sites made with PHP et al can be broken on non-IE browsers just as easily. It's the fault of lazy developers, not the tools they used.

Not sure what problem's the GP has had with the CodePlex site though. I've never seen any problems with it in FireFox.

Like github, but worse (2, Interesting)

kikito (971480) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665046)

After a cursory look it seems like an foundation more interested on marketing and policies than in code. I actually had to look hard in order to find the project list.

Am I right to assume that there are only 6 projects?

Seriously, six?

Meh. Call me when they have 600.

(Goes back to github).

Re:Like github, but worse (2, Informative)

BladeMelbourne (518866) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665256)

Uh, no 16021 projects. And this was with one click from the homepage - "Project Directory" - funny about how obvious links make sense.

>more interested on marketing and policies than in code
Really? From your 1 second glance at the homepage? Unless you have 99% vision loss, you are a troll - or illiterate.

Re:Like github, but worse (2, Informative)

kikito (971480) | more than 4 years ago | (#32666984)

From the article:

"... Not to be confused with Codeplex.com"

I think we both have been looking to different sites. Sure, codeplex.com has lots of projects. But this article is not about it.

Also, FYI: I happen to have suffered eye surgery. As a result, my vision is better than average.

OT: Why are my moderations not registering? (0, Offtopic)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665156)

I have 5 mod points, but when I select a moderation, say, "Insightful", nothing happens. It just sits there.

This has been going on for a couple days, ever since I got this batch of mod points. Can someone explain?

Re:OT: Why are my moderations not registering? (1)

kikito (971480) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665236)

Javascript deactivated? Overzealous firewall?

Re:OT: Why are my moderations not registering? (1)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 4 years ago | (#32666012)

I have NoScript, but all scripts here are enabled. And moderations used to work fine. It's only this last batch.

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.3) Gecko/20100402 Firefox/3.6.3

Re:OT: Why are my moderations not registering? (1)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 4 years ago | (#32666062)

Never mind. Seems to be working now... (*grr*)

Good Question...here is my answer (1)

shutslar (865820) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665222)

My answer is (B) it forever doomed to be ignored by the open source world because of its origins. And that is my final answer.

Not exactly any license. (2, Insightful)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665464)

Codeplex is utterly GPL unfriendly, i would say GPL hostile. Its also nothing more than a way to steer open source towards being something you build with Microsofts closed technologies. Its not even stealthy in that regard.

I say fuck Microsoft until they prove they can cooperate. Why give them free ammo for absolutely nothing?

Re:Not exactly any license. (2, Informative)

RaceProUK (1137575) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665604)

From http://www.codeplex.org/About2/FAQ/Mission.aspx [codeplex.org] (emphasis mine):

The Foundation has no pre-suppositions about particular projects, platforms, or open source licenses.

Doesn't sound hostile to the GPL to me.

Re:Not exactly any license. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32667898)

Wait a minute. Do you really base your opinions on a single sentence? One that is probably written by the marketing department. Good luck with that. I'll stick with the guys who believe history is likely to repeat itself.

It can't work (2, Interesting)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 4 years ago | (#32665618)

There is too much distrust on both sides. MS has screwed over and back stabbed so many "partners" and viciously attacked Open Source for years. The Open Source community hates them and they know it. There's too much animosity to be bridged by these vague attempts at reaching out to the OSS community. It would take a massive turn around in policy....something like porting Office and Exchange to linux to actually make any real impression.

Re:It can't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32668330)

something like porting Office and Exchange to linux to actually make any real impression.

Such an insightful remark. If the judge had required MS Office and Exchange be ported to Linux, even as pay-for software, a large proportion of the world would now be running Linux + MSOffice with Exchange. What a missed opportunity.

Why I don't like MS Hosting FOSS Projects (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32665628)

Why I don't like MS Hosting FOSS Projects ... a few reasons.
1) Microsoft has always looked towards the bottom line first and community second.
2) Microsoft doesn't really want any competition in platforms, so anything written that runs on many different platforms will "never behave as well" (performance, threading, resources, etc) as a 100% native application.
3) When Microsoft does attempt to get onboard with a standard app/tool/protocol, they always extend it in a proprietary way. Sometimes they make it better than it was, but since nobody else is allowed to also get those extensions, it doesn't do any good for the original community. Just look at LDAP/Active Directory.
4) Microsoft has had 30+ years to select, port and deliver a good cross platform scripting language, but they have not done so. I would love to have a native-from-Microsoft pre-installed version of Perl on every MS-Windows platform. Still they release wsh, cmd, bat and other similar crap. Where's the MS-Python or MS-Perl or MS-Php? Oh, because those are true FOSS projects, MS can't bastardize them. It doesn't matter how much more productive scripting would be. We know other commercial vendors that include these tools with the OS. Why won't Microsoft?

If you want a new idea to flourish, you need these things:
- small group of _believers_ that work on it for passion, not money
- complete openness in the results - source code in this case
- competition - another real player to battle against who also has complete openness in their code. It is NOT cheating to look at the competition's work.

Examples include the robot soccer team competition where at the end of every competition, all software for every team is shared so the level of play the following year will be elevated for all teams. Basically, the best software for last year is the starting point for all teams in the next competition.

Just a few thoughts.

NDA? (2, Interesting)

jc42 (318812) | more than 4 years ago | (#32667120)

I remember back when the Shared Source Initiative was announced, I looked into in, and found that actually seeing any of the source code required signing an NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement). I closed those windows and forgot about it.

So are there NDAs required by any of the various CodePlex things? Or are there other equivalent "agreements" that have other euphemistic names? That would tell us a lot about their actual intentions.

I've written a lot of software that's secret, proprietary, whatever. The companies that hired me paid me pretty well for the software. But if I'm to get involved in something that I think is going to be shared publicly among a crowd of developers, and then discover that it's actually owned and controlled by the web site's owners, I'm going to feel rather double-crossed. I'd rather know beforehand, so I can avoid wasting my time just to donate code to such organizations.

Another variant of this problem existed on AT&T's Sys/V. I did some development in which some of the machines that I tested the code on ran Sys/V. I found that the binaries always contained an AT&T copyright notice. This was obviously because the binaries linked in the AT&T libc and other libraries. So I refused to distribute binaries for Sys/V, on the grounds that doing so might legally constitute signing my copyright to AT&T. I know of a number of companies that abandoned Sys/V after I pointed this out to them (and their lawyers agreed).

There a lot of tricky ways to lose control of your code to big corporations, and Microsoft has a bit of a rep for tricks like this. So it'd be nice to know up front whether a new repository holds such threats.

Really. Who the fuck cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32668604)

about open source? Really. Its the HIPPIE bullshit of software development and it smells like shit.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...