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's Olivier Bloch Explains Microsoft Open Source (Video)

Roblimo posted about a month and a half ago | from the we're-open-source-or-maybe-we're-not-we're-trying-to-figure-it-all-out dept.

Microsoft 101

Most of us don't think of Microsoft when our thoughts turn to open source. This is probably because the company's main products, Windows and Office, are so far from open that just thinking about them probably violates their user agreement.. But wait! says Olivier Bloch, Senior Technical Evangelist at Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc., we have lots and lots of open source around here. Look at this. And this and this and even this. Lots of open source. Better yet, Olivier works for Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc., not directly for the big bad parent company. Watch the video or read the transcript, and maybe you'll figure out where Microsoft is going with their happy talk about open source. (Alternate Video Link)

cancel ×

101 comments

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

This is it. (4, Funny)

i kan reed (749298) | about a month and a half ago | (#47616791)

Slashdot articles are now pushing Microsoft products. Everything is backwards from 1997.

Re:This is it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47616861)

Yeah well, maybe it's time to shave and put away your suspenders..

Re:This is it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47616907)

It's stupid not to learn from history.

Re:This is it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47616959)

So astroturfing is the new growing up now?

Re:This is it. (0)

i kan reed (749298) | about a month and a half ago | (#47617035)

Well, I mean, slashdot has been astroturfing for a while, this is just the first time I've noticed it specifically being for Microsoft.

Re:This is it. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47618333)

Seriously why do you so badly need Microsoft to be the epitome of evil so you can get angry about it? Sure if you really need to be angry about it I'm sure you can easily find plenty of things they do to fixate upon, there is no shortage of those and you dont even have to look to the past to find them. No company is ever going to be perfect so you don't have to worry that you'll run out of companies to be angry at for some reason or other. Add to that Microsoft's influence in personal computing (given that personal computing has moved away from traditional PCs) is greatly diminished these days anyway.

Every company will do good and bad things so don't taint the good things by pointing to the bad or justify the bad things by pointing to the good ones. Don't try to suppress information just because reality conflicts with your fantastical world view.

Re:This is it. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619363)

Seriously why do you so badly need Microsoft to be the epitome of evil so you can get angry about it?

It's not that. Well, it is for some, but at the same time they've for a long time acted predictably duplicious and reprehensible that the pavlov reflex of disbelief is actually justified by past performance.

(given that personal computing has moved away from traditional PCs)

Not a given, actually. But we have poetterix that is trying and succeeding to be the new micros~1, and in fact now a much more immediate threat to our precious code purity.

Don't try to suppress information just because reality conflicts with your fantastical world view.

Suppress? The summary is very clearly gushing slashvertisement where quite a few don't think of this as warranted, much less earned. Had it been brought more neutral then a more neutral reaction would've been expectable. In that sense it is just as much a troll as astroturfing.

Re:This is it. (1)

jrumney (197329) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619503)

As opposed to Microsoft's astroturfing against Linux (or OpenDocument, or whatever open technology they're trying to block this week).

Re:This is it. (2, Insightful)

jones_supa (887896) | about a month and a half ago | (#47617721)

Slashdot articles are now pushing Microsoft products. Everything is backwards from 1997.

Times have actually changed. Microsoft software was mostly garbage in 1997. That's not true anymore.

Re:This is it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47617843)

Yes. Now it is mostly garbage and uses the internet. Ever so much better!

Re:This is it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47617873)

Right, it's not 1997.

Now Microsoft software is mostly garbage in 2014.

Re:This is it. (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a month and a half ago | (#47617929)

Heh, good one. ;)

Re:This is it. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47618325)

someone, with their head in the sand for the past 20 years, is drinking too much MS-Koolaid for sure. Generally, Microsoft's open source lab or whatever they are calling it today has been all about training someone to move into marketing and develop material and methods to fight customer migrations to open source. They have a long history of this and because they would be DOA without Windows in the market, they can not afford to let or promote any kind of open source which does not lock vendors into Windows.

Their history has been so filled with attacks on open source and open standards to believe anything they say. It's all marketing all the time.

Re:This is it. (1)

chr1st1anSoldier (2598085) | about a month ago | (#47637553)

I agree. Lets start with An Open Letter to Hobbyists [blinkenlights.com] by our good ol pal, William Henry Gates III from the date of Feb, 3 1976. Thirty eight years later and the mentality at Microsoft hasn't really changed much. Let's not forget the Halloween Documents [wikipedia.org] back from 1998. How can we forget the Initiave for Software Choice [cnet.com] led by our friends at Microsoft back in 2002. Dare anyone to forget the Microsoft Get the Facts [techhive.com] campaign? Or how about Microsoft messing with OLPC [captaincodemonkey.com] . How about the recent attempt at making us think ODF [techrights.org] is bad? I think I am going to have to pull the BS card on this article as well.

Re:This is it. (1)

Roblimo (357) | about a month and a half ago | (#47623001)

One generally isn't ironic/sarcastic when "pushing" a company or its products. :)

Hm, not the parent company... which means? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47616809)

"not directly for the big bad parent company" - what exactly is the distinction made by that 1 level of parent company separation?

embrace and extend vs extinguish, apparently (2)

raymorris (2726007) | about a month and a half ago | (#47617431)

The parent company says open source is "a cancer".
The subsidiary he works for says open source is what MS does, sign a NDA and you can see the documentation.
Also, the subsidiary says, open source is when MS buys a trade group to have their patented format voted as a standard.

That's the difference.

Re:embrace and extend vs extinguish, apparently (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619345)

The parent company says open source is "a cancer".

Clearly that's just something you heard about and are parrotting without understanding, so I will educate you: 13 years ago, then-CEO of Microsoft, Steve Ballmer described "Linux" as a cancer. In actuality what he went on to describe was the GNU GPL and its provisions that including GPL'd code with other code requires that other code to be licensed under a GPL-compatible license. That is an entirely valid critique with a slip/misunderstanding that led to an inflammatory headline.

So not only did he not say "open source is a cancer" and he is no longer employed by the company (though he does have a large shareholding) but he wasn't talking about open source in general or Linux but the restrictive provisions of the GPL which are controversial even in FOSS circles (see the *many* restrictive vs permissive license debates). Yes, Ballmer is an idiot and clearly (after reading the article) you can see his attack is not on Linux or Open Source but on the restrictiveness of the GPL.

Hopefully that helps you, Im not passing judgement on the issue in question or whether or not Microsoft is evil or open source is great or whether this is truly contributions to OSS or some conspiratorial plot, just to stop the spread of misinformation.

he went on to say open source can't be used commer (4, Informative)

raymorris (2726007) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619511)

> wasn't talking about open source in general

Quoting Ballmer:
        If you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source

He went on to claim software written for or by the government shouldn't be open source because commercial companies are not allowed to use open source software.

PS he owns more of MS than Bill Gates (2)

raymorris (2726007) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619531)

PS, you are correct that he's a major shareholder. He controls more shares than Bill Gates, enough to swing any shareholder vote, thereby giving him de facto control of the board of directors and the company.

Re:he went on to say open source can't be used com (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619853)

> wasn't talking about open source in general

Quoting Ballmer: If you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source

and as the more educated among us know that is not true and when he was using the term "open source" what he actually meant was the usage of GNU GPL'd code in a project. Are you just being intentionally obtuse or could you genuinely not parse what he meant? Im not saying I agree with anything he said or meant but Im not going to pretend Im too stupid to understand it.

and no, a single digit percentage share in a company is *not* enough to swing any shareholder vote.

Re:he went on to say open source can't be used com (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47621333)

he was using the term "open source" what he actually meant

Neither Ballmer nor Jesus need you to interpret what they meant when they spoke plainly.

Re:he went on to say open source can't be used com (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about a month and a half ago | (#47622153)

He went on about it for a while, so it's not a case of mispeaking, of saying the wrong word. When he said commercial companies aren't allowed to use open source software, I think he meant exactly what he said. That's a lie, of course, but it certainly seems he knew what he was saying.

A vote might well go 48% - 52% or something like that. BallmeBallmeer can swing it from 48/52 to 51/49. Ballmer's 3% share is enough to swing many, if not most, votes.

Re:he went on to say open source can't be used com (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47626743)

He went on about it for a while, so it's not a case of mispeaking, of saying the wrong word.

no he just made the case against the GPL (the case that many BSD-advocates also make), obviously with the incorrect assumption that GPL == Open Source. but irrespective of that it was an uniformed claim made 13 years ago by the CEO who is no longer an employee of the company and holds a low single digit share of the company. im not sure what conclusions you draw from that to apply to the situation today? clearly even if what he did mean "open source" then it is a proven fact that that is no longer the view of the company given that they release some things as open source today. so no matter how you look at it it is irrelevant today anyway unless you are simply looking to cling to the past to fulfill some desperate need to be able to project to them as the enemy of open source.

Ballmer's 3% share is enough to swing if, if any, votes.

FTFY. votes so close that 3% makes the difference are not common.

Re:embrace and extend vs extinguish, apparently (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about a month and a half ago | (#47626753)

The parent company says open source is "a cancer".

That was a decade ago and obviously that isn't the case anymore. Also it was said by Ballmer, I don't think anybody takes what he says particularly seriously.

At Least Once A Year... (-1, Troll)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a month and a half ago | (#47616839)

At least once a year, Redmond sends one of its shills out to declare Microsoft's dedication to open source, and it's always a variation on the same theme.

All I can say is "fuck off you treacherous dog, Olivier Bloch."

Re: At Least Once A Year... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47616917)

It's a translation problem. Olivier thinks FOSS stands for Free of Open Source Software. He only came here to get away from socialism and the burden of free health care.

Re:At Least Once A Year... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47616965)

the 90's called and wants its flannel back.

Re:At Least Once A Year... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47616981)

Why does it even have a flannel back?

Re:At Least Once A Year... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47621325)

It doesn't. That's why it wants one.

Re:At Least Once A Year... (3, Interesting)

LifesABeach (234436) | about a month and a half ago | (#47617727)

Amazing, their open source is .NET stuff; is .NET stuff open source?

Re:At Least Once A Year... (1)

Riplakish (213391) | about a month and a half ago | (#47624043)

Yes, it is:

Mono [mono-project.com]
ASP.NET [codeplex.com]
Entity Framework [codeplex.com]

Re:At Least Once A Year... (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about a month and a half ago | (#47617763)

At least once a year, Redmond sends one of its shills out to declare Microsoft's dedication to open source, and it's always a variation on the same theme.

It happens more often these days. Last time they talked about OSS a month ago [slashdot.org] .

Re:At Least Once A Year... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47618369)

Don't you talk about open source, Microsoft! We dont actually want change so you just keep doing evil things so we can stay mad at you, thats all we really want!

Re:At Least Once A Year... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47618419)

All I can say is "fuck off you treacherous dog, Olivier Bloch."

so you saw "Microsoft" and you saw "open source" and you had an emotional crisis and tourette-like outburst. people like you are everything that is wrong with tech communities, no impartiality no ability to see beyond your own preconceptions. sorry but the world changed around you and you missed it because you were so busy being angry.

what they are doing here is a *good* thing. does that change my perception of their corporate culture? no, not really. do i think this will lead to some revolution? no. but unlike you i also do not immediately hate whatever they do and everybody they employ just because i disagree with some things they do, you lack objectivity.

Re:At Least Once A Year... (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about a month and a half ago | (#47618799)

It could really happen in part at least. If MSN were to be split out of M$ then MSN could pursue the coolness of FOSS as part of a marketing drive to more effectively and directly challenge Google. There is no reason a separate and independent MSN should stick with windows and office product and instead pursue service and support of FOSS products and of course us it internally in order to promote it's skills and coolness eternally.

Re:At Least Once A Year... (1)

paiute (550198) | about a month and a half ago | (#47621343)

There is no reason a separate and independent MSN should stick with windows and office product

Depends on who owns the majority of the stock in that 'independent' company, don't it?

Kinda like explaining Ebola (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47616871)

You don't want it, and if it touches you, you are DEAD.

Re:Kinda like explaining Ebola (2)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | about a month and a half ago | (#47616897)

/. submmissions have always had a bit of an issue with spelling. In this case, the original story was probably about Open Sores.

Please dissolve this Anti-American company. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47616903)

Let's not forget one of the main sponsors behind H1B visas. They hate American workers and don't deserve to be part of our country.

Re:Please dissolve this Anti-American company. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47617197)

DEY TURK R JERBS!!!

"we have lots and lots of open source around here" (5, Interesting)

Nexus Unplugged (2495076) | about a month and a half ago | (#47616951)

...and yet, all of Microsoft's flagship products, AFAIK, are the polar opposite of open source. If Microsoft truly thought anything of open source, this should not be the case.

Re:"we have lots and lots of open source around he (3, Informative)

JonahsDad (1332091) | about a month and a half ago | (#47617049)

Roslyn should be considered a flagship product (you know, once it's released). It's open source. http://roslyn.codeplex.com/ [codeplex.com]

Re: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47618185)

But what about the patents behind it?

Re: (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about a month and a half ago | (#47620135)

Did you not even bother to look at the link? It's pretty clear:

3. Grant of Patent License.

Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.

Re:"we have lots and lots of open source around he (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about a month and a half ago | (#47621569)

you forget... it'll never be released. Its job is to garner support, "hearts and minds" and then get all the best bits subsumed into the core of Microsoft closed-source products where you'll never see it again.

then Roslyn will not be needed, can be left to die while they produce another open source project.

Re:"we have lots and lots of open source around he (2)

mysidia (191772) | about a month and a half ago | (#47617397)

Correct.... and ultimately... the reason for all their Open Source efforts is to promote the flagship closed source software such as Windows and IIS and help keep developers on their platform; they don't want popular "The Open Source Momvement" to mean that people who are onboard have to leave their closed expensive platforms.

Re:"we have lots and lots of open source around he (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about a month and a half ago | (#47618221)

Really? I can run Roslyn or Asp.Net MVC or ASP.Net vNext or Katana on Mono, no Microsoft OS in sight.

Re:"we have lots and lots of open source around he (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47619537)

And who created Mono? Not Microsoft...

Re:"we have lots and lots of open source around he (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47617487)

Yes, but the same can be said of Google and others.

Re:"we have lots and lots of open source around he (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about a month and a half ago | (#47618205)

What do you call a "flagship product"? Entity Framework? ASP.Net MVC? SignalR? Kudu? ASP.Net vNext? Roslyn? Katana?

On the developer side, we are very well catered for in the open source arena by Microsoft.

Re:"we have lots and lots of open source around he (2)

MaxwellStreet (148915) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619265)

In the Hadoop space, Microsoft has also worked with Hortonworks [hortonworks.com] to expand the Apache Stinger, Tez, and ORC projects - among others.

Granted, they certainly want to make sure Hadoop runs on Windows servers and Azure; but nobody says that open source has to be an entirely altruistic affair.

Re:"we have lots and lots of open source around he (1)

kwbauer (1677400) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619937)

" but nobody says that open source has to be an entirely altruistic affair." Heresy. Around here we seldom use OSS unless we are talking about World War II, we always use FOSS and nobody pays for anything because Star Trek.

Re:"we have lots and lots of open source around he (2)

exomondo (1725132) | about a month and a half ago | (#47618513)

...and yet, all of Microsoft's flagship products, AFAIK, are the polar opposite of open source. If Microsoft truly thought anything of open source, this should not be the case.

That's a very absolutist viewpoint, by that logic if you though anything of open source the core components of your computer(s) would be open source hardware and you would run nothing but open source software. Some people fail to understand that you can be a supporter of an ideology without being an absolutist.

Re:"we have lots and lots of open source around he (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47620309)

What makes me laugh is this claim of open-source. And yet the company is still doing things to attack and harm free software/open-source.

I have a feeling that MS is doing nothing more then monopolize open-source/free-software. They'll probably use the patent system and other copyright loopholes to eliminate or cripple whatever code they want for themselves. Android really isn't open-source you had a company abuse Linux so they didn't have to spend money to build an OS, and it is so fragmented along with the security holes in it, Google has really setback Linux by years.

Re:"we have lots and lots of open source around he (1)

TemporalBeing (803363) | about a month and a half ago | (#47624745)

...and yet, all of Microsoft's flagship products, AFAIK, are the polar opposite of open source. If Microsoft truly thought anything of open source, this should not be the case.

Well, WiX is kind of a flagship product - it's embedded in Visual Studios, utilized by most all of their projects, and Open Source (originally GPLv2, I forget what the current license is).

This is old news (4, Insightful)

celeb8 (682138) | about a month and a half ago | (#47616961)

While MS is the company that everybody who ever liked MacOS or Linux loves to hate, it's been a long time since they've been actively hostile to open source, and they contribute quite a bit to it. Frankly it's been a long time since I've seen a good reason to dislike them any more than any other corporation in an adversarial relationship with a product I like.

Re:This is old news (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47617021)

While MS is the company that everybody who ever liked MacOS or Linux loves to hate, it's been a long time since they've been actively hostile to open source, and they contribute quite a bit to it.

You mean by charging royalties on code they don't own?

Frankly it's been a long time since I've seen a good reason to dislike them any more than any other corporation in an adversarial relationship with a product I like.

You mean, now that google fails at their own "don't be evil" credo, micros~1 must be ok again?

They managed to squander any and all trust they might have had (gain a solid rep the other way, in fact), and recovering from that takes a long time and much more effort than a yearly dress up party complete with "look us, we're so pretty" press release.

"Trust" and Corporations (2)

Dutch Gun (899105) | about a month and a half ago | (#47619703)

They managed to squander any and all trust they might have had

Anyone who "trusts" any large corporation is foolish at best, if you're describing the moral sense of the word. The only thing you can "trust" is for a corporation to do what's best for its own survival and bottom line. For the most part, especially in today's information-rich world, most companies - at least those who don't have government-sanctioned monopolies like many ISPs and cable providers - understand that pissing off large numbers of customers is pretty bad for business.

You can generally trust a company to do what's in its own best interest. In well run companies, that typically aligns reasonably well with customer interests, but only because unsatisfied customers tend to look for alternative products or vendors. I trust Amazon to keep my data secure in its datacenters, both at a technical level (they have lots of experience) and at a business level (a breach or massive data loss would harm their reputation). I also use Microsoft products on a daily basis, both because they're good products and because their operating systems are a huge percentage of my target market. I trust that they have very strong incentives to produce stable and secure products, which again aligns with my needs. They have no desire to become any less relevant in a fast-moving world that they're already struggling to keep pace with.

When most people talk about trust and corporations, I think it's generally a different sort of trust than, for example, how you'd trust your wife, family, or friends. At least, it certainly is for me. For businesses, trusting Microsoft might simply be the belief that Microsoft will continue to act in a relatively predictable manner, and so they can be relied on to provide the same sort of services and level of quality, whatever you perceive that to be, as they had in the past. You're simply trusting in its inherent nature. So, if you *understand* its nature, you can then better understand what you should and shouldn't allow that company to do for you - or to you.

That may sound overly cynical or somehow like an anti-corporate or anti-capitalist rant, but that's not where I'm coming from. Let's face it, without large corporations, we wouldn't have access to a lot of our most impressive products and technology. I just think it's important to understand and accept something's true nature in order to effectively make use of it, and to protect ourselves when our interests *don't* align with it.

Re:This is old news (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47617023)

You are must be dumb, blind and fucking stupid.

Re:This is old news (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47617423)

> it's been a long time since they've been actively hostile to open source

Here is an alphabetical list for you just regarding the ooxml, just so that you understand the scale of the problem:
http://techrights.org/ooxml-abuse-index/

It is hard to prove anything. But why would poor countries vote against free solutions. Why would small companies do a study that looks like FUD and makes Microsoft products look better compared to open source?

Re:This is old news (1)

TsuruchiBrian (2731979) | about a month and a half ago | (#47618779)

Why would rich countries vote against free solutions? Doesn't saving money make you even more rich? Why doesn't everybody use open source software? Who doesn't love superior products free of charge?

Re:This is old news (4, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a month and a half ago | (#47617559)

OOXML and the continued, though as yet unactioned, threat of patents over Linux both come to mind.

Microsoft is still every bit as evil as it once was. The chief difference between now and the 1990s is that its market, at least on the consumer side, is shrinking. For now that means they're forced to live with major open source projects like Linux, but I refer you back to Ballmer's patent threats. If it really goes down to the wire, you don't think Microsoft would try to litigate Linux out of existence? After all, we already know it bankrolled SCO's attempts.

Microsoft has never been, nor shall it ever be, a friend to open source. It hates it, fears it, is forced at times to cooperate with it, but you don't think there's a day that goes by that its executive don't wish open source would shrivel up and die?

There's no change in sentiment, simply in ability to act on the sentiment. The mere fact that they're sending out their latest psuedo-FOSSite quisling demonstrates that Redmond is the same as it ever was.

Re:This is old news (1)

Dracos (107777) | about a month and a half ago | (#47618057)

MS is still actively hostile to open source, except now they're bipolar about it.

Re:This is old news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47622253)

... and they contribute quite a bit to it ...

You're joking I hope because if you're not then you are seriously deluded or a lying marketer. Particularly when you compare their open source efforts to the size of the company and their closed source efforts - it's not even close. Almost the only "open source" they produce is self serving. Their corporate culture can't seem to cope with partnerships and cooperation which is of benefit to more than just themselves.

We don't think of MS for open source because... (4, Insightful)

gtall (79522) | about a month and a half ago | (#47616967)

The reason we don't think of MS when it comes to open source is because it is like being reminded of one's evil mother-in-law. You know she's out there, scheming, plotting. You know will have to deal with her one way or another. You know she'd like to steal your soul and sell it straight to Satan.

Re:We don't think of MS for open source because... (0)

synapse7 (1075571) | about a month and a half ago | (#47617079)

That and the sites are not really evidence of any contribution, other than pushing a glorified blog for collaboration.

Re:We don't think of MS for open source because... (1)

briancox2 (2417470) | about a month and a half ago | (#47617301)

At least we know the name of this scheme. It's called "Embrace, extend, extinguish".

But perhaps that's not what this is about. Maybe it's a new evil scheme. "Embrace, extend, own"?

Re:We don't think of MS for open source because... (1)

david_thornley (598059) | about a month and a half ago | (#47624327)

Hey! Don't insult my mother-in-law with that comparison.

Yeah, right (4, Insightful)

DaveM753 (844913) | about a month and a half ago | (#47616979)

If it's Microsoft, it's a trap.

(Apologies to any fish-headed gents in the crowd.)

It's a trap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47616985)

If you look at it they will claim you are in violation if you use any of the same language features! What's MS's history with hobbyists again?

Trust? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47617005)

... zero.
They can keep their source.

Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer are gone (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47617027)

Who knows, maybe the tables will continue turning and Microsoft will become a sane, viable choice in the future.

Posted AC because of trolls, fanboys and acesulfame potassium.

Hyperlinks (5, Informative)

jones_supa (887896) | about a month and a half ago | (#47617059)

Look at this [msopentech.com] . And this [dotnetfoundation.org] and this [computerworld.com] and even this [codeplex.com] .

Raaawrgh. Not the "this, this and this" dance again. ;) Let me FTFY...

"Look at Microsoft Open Technologies [msopentech.com] . And .NET Foundation [dotnetfoundation.org] and a Computerworld article about Internet of Things [computerworld.com] and even Codeplex [codeplex.com] ."

A good rule of thumb is that the sentence should be readable even without seeing which URLs the hyperlinks point to.

Re:Hyperlinks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47620047)

So many things, to throw on the ground! [youtube.com] Like this, and this, and that, and even this!

Next up (3, Funny)

idontgno (624372) | about a month and a half ago | (#47617093)

A youtube video from Iran's Culture Minister explaining Tehran Catholicism.

Re:Next up (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47617149)

or the borg explaining individuality.

Re:Next up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47617281)

You may be anonymous, and I may be anonymous, but I'd plus one that any day.

Re:Next up (1)

sideslash (1865434) | about a month and a half ago | (#47618331)

To be fair, I'd rather be an ethnically-Persian-to-some-degree Jew or Catholic living in Iran than the equivalent in Palestinian controlled Gaza. The Iranians pride themselves on at least paying lip service to tolerating Persian Jews and Christians, as opposed to forming mobs and murdering them. For example, Iran actually has a Jewish member of Parliament. Of course, democratic/representative government there is basically a sham since it's all under the ayatollah.

And yet, Iran is the most imminent threat to Israel and Iran's rulers routinely scream about their murderous intent involving WMDs.

Bottom line: Iran is a weird place.

Halloween Documents (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47617183)

Re: Halloween Documents (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47617297)

Exactly. I hope this gets modded up as it was a few years back and some people may never have heard of this. Part of a giant campaign at the time by Microsoft to undermine open source and free software...

Re: Halloween Documents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47617859)

your wish is my anonymous moderator command

Re: Halloween Documents (1)

Shaman (1148) | about a month and a half ago | (#47618065)

Why was this modded down? It's insightful.

Racism. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47617255)

The level of racism against Microsoft here, is appalling.

Re:Racism. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47617917)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Hint, nobody is born working for Microsoft.

Re:Racism. (2)

PPH (736903) | about a month and a half ago | (#47618283)

Not only is Microsoft Corporation a person, now you want it to become a protected minority as well.

Microsoft Open Source Initiative? (4, Informative)

lippydude (3635849) | about a month and a half ago | (#47617323)

'In a CSI job posting in December [crn.com] , Microsoft said candidates would need to be able to

Win share against Open Source Software (OSS) in the cloud, on devices, and in traditional workloads by changing perceptions of Microsoft and winning the socket.”'

The core of this role is to win mind-share so that Microsoft can win market-share.” ref [linkedin.com]

re: This and this and this (1)

mysidia (191772) | about a month and a half ago | (#47617483)

Look at this. And this and this and even this

This is nothing more than Get The Facts [slashdot.org] (version 3.0)

A followup to their anti-Linux campaign and anti-Firefox campaign and then their anti-Google ("Scroogled") campaign saying "We're all open source and stuff".

Re: This and this and this (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a month and a half ago | (#47618157)

Last year they also had a Google Docs Isn't Worth the Gamble [office.com] campaign accompanied with a video.

WOOSH (1)

radioact69 (1220518) | about a month and a half ago | (#47617513)

So much hot air. So many words, yet nothing with any meaning was said.
Never forget: embracing open source is just the first step in "embrace, extend, extinguish."

In my 25 years of professional computing... (4, Informative)

Shaman (1148) | about a month and a half ago | (#47618107)

...any time Microsoft has tried to pass itself off as reasonable and interoperational, it was a springboard attempt to find out who in the industry wants that from them, and then apply thumbscrews, handcuffs, hookers and blow as required to get those companies to see the world its way. That is, the Microsoft-centric, homogenous and locked-in up to their eyeballs, way.

Never. Ever. Ever. Ever.

EVER.

NEVER EVER trust Microsoft. They are the most self-interested company in the history of companies. Even Oracle looks shiny compared to Microsoft.

Re:In my 25 years of professional computing... (1)

DaveM753 (844913) | about a month and a half ago | (#47618211)

+6 Informative

When you think of MS, you may not think of OSS (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47618267)

Most of us don't think of Microsoft when our thoughts turn to open source. This is probably because the company's main products, Windows and Office, are so far from open that just thinking about them probably violates their user agreement.

Or it might be because of statements like "Linux is a cancer" being made by the company's Chief Executive Monkey. Or the way they bulldozed their substantially-less-than-open MOOXML through when an actual open document format looked like it stood a chance of becoming a standard. Or the company's decades of monopolistic, crush-anything-that-looks-remotely-competitive behaviour. Or the way they spent a couple of decades ripping off products and technologies, crushing the original developers in the process. Or the way they've cowed so many people into accepting mediocrity as being acceptable.

I could go on and on with their disgusting actions and behaviours, but I'm pretty sure that "because Windows and Office are far from open" is the least of the reasons why I wouldn't be quick to associated Microsoft with open source.

At least we know the next LIE they'll try to sell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47618275)

"we have lots and lots of open source around here" that is a complete LIE.

In the list of references provided as proof of Microsoft contributing to open source, none of them are independently useful Microsoft developed projects. They all live on entirely proprietary systems fully owned by Microsoft, thus not really opensource in any way, and only truly promote usage of their proprietary tools with independently developed open source software. Sure they are happy to provide ways for you to develop open source software, but it is a lie to say that the references there provide proof that Microsoft develops open software.

Made we'll try again next decade.

Platform locked to Windows (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47618437)

Last time I tested several software packages from CodePlex, it required Microsoft Windows and OS locked .NET framework to run. This breaks elegantly with freedom 0 in free software: The freedom to run the program for any purpose. My purpose was to run this software cross platform. Not only using Windows, but also see how it worked on Debian GNU/Linux ... It didn't stop there.

The CodePlex applications I installed also added Adware to my different browser on Windows, me having no choice to reject if I would test the software. The Adware made serveral new menu items and input boxes appear. It was a great hassle to remove it. Uninstalling the CodePlex applications was not enough. I had to find a "wipe clean" Adware app for Windows. It didn't do it's job properly. Also it suggested I should pay for removing the Adware. I ended up taking backup of the bookmarks on Firefox, reinstalling Windows and the browser. Then reloading the bookmarks into Firefox.

Why did I test the CodePlex applications in the first place? I was curious on the code quality, and If the alleged quality of community made software shared on CodePlex. I downloaded some of the more popular apps, wanting to experience first hand if the products did what Microsoft has evangelised so forcefully. My experience thou, being using free software since 1996, was that the apps I tried was quite inferior to free software I've been using the last decade on GNU/Linux, Mac or even Windows. The Adware problems came in addition to the inferiority of the applications.

You can of course say that Microsoft hasn't done something like "open source" for long, and you got to give the community time to produce quality software. Well, Microsoft started with so called shared source in 2001, thirteen years ago. They launched CodePlex five years later, now eight years ago. The community got sufficient time to produce quality software in three to five years. Especially the popular community projects should be able to do quality software by now. My experience is that it's just to little to late.

I suggest that developers restricting them self only to Windows, to broaden their perspective. According to Microsoft, Windows only got 14 percent market share on computer devices. That implies that 86 percent are buying and Linux-based Android system, iOS, OS X or something else which are not made by Microsoft. Windows usage share at Wikipedia is below 40 percent. If you interested to make your "open source" code being relevant for as many as possible, don't restrict your self to a fraction of the computer users by limiting yourself to Windows. Include the +60 percent using something else than Windows, including the future generations where +85 percent are using something else. Freedom 0 in free software is the future, running the software for any purpose, including the operating system that most users are buying which today is the Linux-based Android system.

Re:Platform locked to Windows (1)

mitzoe (2531020) | about a month and a half ago | (#47624199)

I suggest that developers restricting them self only to Windows, to broaden their perspective.

Or, instead of complaining, go the open-source route and fork a project and port it to another platform.

Oh! Mighty body language! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47618447)

Look kids! All those hand movements, the expression in the face, the tone of a salesman in action!

Open Source Microsoft?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Looks as if the "Fight" Step is Reached (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47620413)

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." [Gandhi @ RedHat [alkalay.net] ]

The problem for Oliver... (1)

TemporalBeing (803363) | about a month and a half ago | (#47624913)

The problem for Olivier Bloch, Senior Technical Evangelist and Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. is that they are isolated. The parent company only tells them enough and shows them around enough so that he and others like him can say what they do with a straight face. Meanwhile, the left hand knoweth not what the right hand doth.

I witness this a couple years ago at POSSCON. We had someone that had a similar position at Microsoft give a Keynote. He talked about all the things Microsoft did and everything they showed him and how the teams were open to Open Source. But while he was there saying those things, Microsoft corporate were actively denouncing open source - Balmer and all his lieutenants and even their lieutenants. The speaker truly believed what he was saying - and what he saw. They just sufficiently isolated him such that he was able to believe it and therefore say it. Most of the audience was aware of what Microsoft corporate was saying that directly contracted the speaker they had provided. Sadly, they heckled and booed him instead of showing some professional courtesy, especially since Microsoft was a big sponsor that year.

All that said, it's not that Microsoft can't turn around and become Open Source friendly. It's just that there is such a beaurocratic momentum against it within the company that it will be years before any kind of turn around can effectively happen, unless the have a mass firing of the upper level management, which is not likely.
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>