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!

MS No Cathedral, Open Source No Bazaar?

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the says-the-high-priest dept.

Microsoft 170

AlexGr sends us to InternetNews.com for an account of a Microsoft VP demonstrating Microsoft's ASP.NET AJAX product running on Ubuntu at AJAXWorld. In his earlier keynote, Brad Abrams had declared that, when it comes to AJAX, Microsoft is not the cathedral and open source isn't really a bazaar. He noted that ASP.NET AJAX is available under Microsoft's permissive license with full source code. "The Web is built on open standards and we at Microsoft believe that we have to enable those open standards," Abrams said.

cancel ×

170 comments

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

GNAA announces switch to Windows Vista (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18477655)

fellacious (GNAP) Intercourse, PA - Windows Vista appears to finally be taking off, at least within one Fortune 100 company. The GNAA had for the past 13 years been using Red Hat Linux and it's successor, Fedora Core, but growing discontent with the free software operating system forced CTO Jmax to declare on Wednesday that the company was to be switching its entire infrastructure to the new version of Windows, effective immediately. "I'm not going to theatrically claim that I wasn't expecting to have to do this," Jmax said. "This has been coming for quite some time." The GNAA's troubles with Red Hat's Linux system included chronic governance problems, a persistent failure to maintain key repositories, a complex and undocumented submission process which has kept the GNAA's free trolling utilities off the Red Hat-based desktops of thousands of would-be trolls, inability to keep RPM up to date, and a failure to address the problem of Firefox not crashing a entire computer when the user loads Last Measure. "The deal-breaker, though, was when a key Last Measure server remained down for four hours while our entire Intercourse development team tried desperately to bring it up despite not having statically-linked package manager binaries." What had happened was Dikky, visiting from Norway, wanted to play the child pornography mod of Doom 3 on that server- which had to drag several libraries with it. "In addition," said Jmax, "several key software applications used in the GNAA's corporate workflow are proprietary software- which means that they had to be run in an Ubuntu compatibility environment anyway." However, being as those unnamed applications were written in C#.NET, "We expect that our transition to Windows Vista will come off without a hitch."
About Jmax:

The CTO of the GNAA, Jmax also has a seat on Microsoft's board of directors. His resume can be accessed at http://goatse.fr/ [goatse.fr] .
About Windows Vista:

The fastest-growing desktop operating system on the market, Windows Vista combines the legendary security of Windows 98 with the legendary ease of use of those computer interfaces you see in the movies into one ultra-fast, ultra-stable computing platform.
About Red Hat:

A failure of a computer company, Red Hat burns through investor money while giving its products away for free. It is currently under investigation from the SEC for misuse of invested funds, and being sued by the GNAA for breach of contract for sucking more than specified in the GNAA's contract with Red Hat.
About the Linux community:

Trolled.

About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY?
Are you a NIGGER?
Are you a GAY NIGGER?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

        * First, you have to obtain a copy of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE and watch it. You can download the movie (~130mb) using BitTorrent.
        * Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA First Post on slashdot.org, a popular "news for trolls" website.
        * Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.us, and apply for membership.

Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to submit links to your successful First Post, and you will be tested on your knowledge of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE.

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is NiggerNET, and you can connect to irc.gnaa.us as our official server. Follow this link if you are using an irc client such as mIRC.

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18477667)

> The Web is built on open standards and we at Microsoft
> believe that we have to enable those open standards

O, RLY? You've done a great job of hiding it. Moving forward, I'd prefer you didn't "enable" anything!

Just a move against Java (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18477691)

This is an expected move in the context of the anti-Java strategy from M$. Guess what's next ? A new version "optimized for windoze", running only on M$'s platform.

deja vu? (5, Funny)

Rixel (131146) | more than 7 years ago | (#18477693)

"The Web is built on open standards and we at Microsoft believe that we have to enable those open standards," .....and then twist them into a New York hot pretzel, with a dash of moebius strip, then 'reintroduce'.

Re:deja vu? (4, Insightful)

cloricus (691063) | more than 7 years ago | (#18477729)

Without a word of a troll I believe my brain stem fell to pieces when I read that.

As a web developer for the last ten years I wonder who they honestly believe they are kidding? No matter what your bias you can clearly see in their current policy that they have no interest in standards and less so in web standards.

Re:deja vu? (4, Insightful)

WgT2 (591074) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478093)

After reading that 'standards' line it makes me see Microsoft as nothing less than a hydra:

  • multiple heads
  • with multiple mouths
  • each able to say its own thing
...but they all share the same heart.

Re:deja vu? (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 7 years ago | (#18479389)

Prior Art [wikipedia.org] , though that's never been much of a stumblimg block for MS.

Re:deja vu? (0, Troll)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478889)

The policy is known as "embrace and extend": in practice, it's "embrace and extend and break compatibility". The extensions seem to quite deliberately violate the existing standards: this has occurred repeatedly, with Kerberos (which required a serious patch in MIT's oritingal version to inter-operate with Microsoft's bastardized version), with DNS and DHCP (don't get me started on this one, I had to deal with it last week to show how easy it is to steal a Window's machine's hostname if you use Active Directory's built-in DHCP).

In a weird way, it works both ways (2, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478897)

MS has always seen the web as something to convert away from open standards. Xmlhttprequest was introduced by MS as part of the way to extend and extinguish http. They were surprised when it was used against them, which is why it took them SOOOOOO long to suddenly back it. It was no different when the internet and web were opened to the world. MS had introduced their own internet called MSN that BG wanted to get 1-5 pennies off of ever dollar that was spent. Once he saw the they open internet was killing him, he quickly turned MS against the internet. Same thing is going on with AJAX. MS did not develop it. They simply created 1 protocol as a means to an end, only to find that it worked against them.

The idea of calling MS open is beyond bizarre. It is positively Machiavellian and reminds of me when MS was pushing the idea that THEY developed the internet.

Re:In a weird way, it works both ways (2, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#18479347)

Microsoft does this every few months. They send out one of their talking heads to talk to some segment of the tech community and spread a heaping, reeking pile of bullshit. Whether it's the idiotic question and answer sessions that Slashdot provides, or some developers conference, it's all about trying to make their monopolistic agenda look nice and cuddly. Microsoft has been one of the single biggest enemies of standards of any kind. They've gone out of the way to break standards, so the only question is whether or not this particular talking head actually believes the crap he's spreading.

Well, there is another question. Does Microsoft truly think we're so stupid as to buy into any of it?

Re:In a weird way, it works both ways (2, Insightful)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#18479435)

"there is another question. Does Microsoft truly think we're so stupid as to buy into any of it?"

Yes, they truly think that. And many many people are exactly so stupid. If BG says it, it's true. And if you point out that it's false, you're just jealous of BG's money.

Re:In a weird way, it works both ways (1, Insightful)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 7 years ago | (#18479427)

Same thing is going on with AJAX. MS did not develop it.


What. The. Fuck? MS created AJAX from whole cloth. Your entire post is pure rhetoric and fiction.

...reminds of me when MS was pushing the idea that THEY developed the internet.


How can you be reminded of something that never happened?

Re:In a weird way, it works both ways (2, Funny)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#18479573)

What. The. Fuck? MS created AJAX from whole cloth. Your entire post is pure rhetoric and fiction.

B.S. MS had absolutely NO intentions of doing AJAX. They did not create JavaScript. They had no intention of using Javascript combined with XmlHTTPRequest. XmlHttpRequest was developed to give them a RPC capability for their apps. They had absolutely no intention of using it with their browser. This was a pure OSS idea. That is why MS was the last party to the game WRT ajax.

Re:In a weird way, it works both ways (4, Informative)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 7 years ago | (#18479697)

XmlHTTPRequest was first used Outlook Web Access. In one step microsoft took the web from klugey JVM and form based web apps to asynchronous, dynamic, loosely coupled, non-modal web apps. If you even took the slightest amount of time to look it up you'd know this.

Do you enjoy writing fiction and lies?

Re:deja vu? (1)

horati0 (249977) | more than 7 years ago | (#18480075)

...a New York hot pretzel, with a dash of moebius strip...

How much mustard would you need for that?

Either there's been a complete sea change.... (4, Informative)

jimicus (737525) | more than 7 years ago | (#18477697)

at Microsoft or they're hiring stand-up comedians.

This is the company that wanted to decommoditize standards and protocols [scripting.com] , yet they come out with the line "The Web is built on open standards and we at Microsoft believe that we have to enable those open standards"

Re:Either there's been a complete sea change.... (4, Insightful)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18477745)

It's an old method. Keep getting soundbites published that discredit the view you don't want, and the lie slowly becomes true.

I'll be willing to bet they never would have made source for ajax available had open source not existed. Once again they lead by following...

And anyway, it's not open source, because I can't take the entire source and produce a rival product using it.

Re:Either there's been a complete sea change.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18478357)

Actually, yes, you can. See here [opensourcelegal.org]

Re:Either there's been a complete sea change.... (3, Insightful)

OmegaBlac (752432) | more than 7 years ago | (#18479189)

And anyway, it's not open source, because I can't take the entire source and produce a rival product using it.
It very well may be open source, but it sure is not Free Software.

Re:Either there's been a complete sea change.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18479447)

And anyway, it's not open source, because I can't take the entire source and produce a rival product using it.


By that logic, GPL isn't open source because I can't take the entire source and sell a rival product using it. There are a variety of open source licenses that place restrictions on what you can do with derivative works, including not creating a rival product.

Re:Either there's been a complete sea change.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18477775)

Dear Microsoft,

Last time you "enabled" standards, you got fined by EU. Please stop "enabling" any more standards and start playing fair and nice.

Re:Either there's been a complete sea change.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18478113)

Well, he's right. Microsoft still has nearly a 90% share of the browser market, so they are the ones who have to enable the standards.

But they won't.

Re:Either there's been a complete sea change.... (1)

Merusdraconis (730732) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478861)

Microsoft's a big company. It's not exactly hard to envisage that one team wants to be as open as possible so their technologies fit in nicely with the rest of the Web while other teams try to co-opt standards for their own ends, considering how often we find out that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing at Microsoft.

Re:Either there's been a complete sea change.... (1)

mysticgoat (582871) | more than 7 years ago | (#18479417)

I don't see any evidence that Microsoft "gets it".

I think the suits responsible for managing the development of ASP.NET JAVA have confused "bizarre" with "bazaar", and precisely aimed for, and hit, the wrong target. This is a truly bizarre thing that MS is attempting to foist on the world.

We can expect more weirdness like this coming from Redmond. As a corporate organism, Microsoft was never endowed with very much of the higher cortical functions that are needed to work the top levels of the Maslow pyramid. It is not surprising that as it begins to die, the the small amount of high level cognition needed to maintain an integrated world view has disappeared before the lower level capabilities that allow formulation of clever word constructions has gone. We can expect different parts of Microsoft to express increasingly different world views with a confusing lack of over-all integration of vision, and with an increasing amount of openly expressed conflict between various strategies and tactics.

At worst, Microsoft is a dinosaur entering its death throes, and anybody who has teamed up with that beast needs to break harness and back away to a safe distance. At best, Microsoft is undergoing a massive mid-life crisis, and there is no telling what it will strip off and throw away, or how it will transform the portions of the old Microsoft that it will keep. Mid-life crises are damn hard on relationships. Just as the smart manager realizes that he needs to relieve an employee in mid-life crisis of any mission-crtical responsibilities, companies who have been working with Microsoft need to evaluate whether they should put more distance between themselves and Microsoft's uncertain future.

This is an unusual post for me, because I've been talking about Microsoft, yet I have managed to refrain from making any mention of its monkey dancing, chair throwing, potty-mouthed CEO.

Oops...

Hmm. First example of it. (5, Interesting)

flydpnkrtn (114575) | more than 7 years ago | (#18477699)

So the first example of MS not using the Cathedral model, and they act like this is huge sweeping change? Release the source to Win2K under the permissive license, or help the Samba team figure out the damn protocols for Active Directory authentication, and then maybe we'll talk about "changes" and "open standards"

Re:Hmm. First example of it. (3, Informative)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 7 years ago | (#18477733)

How can it not be? You don't think that this is a major shift for them, even if it is just one product so far? Of course nevermind that VS2005 defaults to strict XHTML 1.1 code.

They cannot release Win2k source code; doing so would violate their agreement with Sun following the Java lawsuit. Win2k binaries aren't even available on MSDN anymore. Basically, if you don't already have a Win2k disc, you're not going to get one.

Re:Hmm. First example of it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18477783)

Couldn't they ship W2k with SP4, security rollup and Suns current JRE?

Re:Hmm. First example of it. (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478145)

No. The agreement forbids shipping Win2k at all. I don't know why, but that's how it is. I still can get Win9x from MSDN (hell, I can get DOS 6.22), so its not because they just want to hide Win2k from developers.

Re:Hmm. First example of it. (3, Interesting)

J0nne (924579) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478717)

nevermind that VS2005 defaults to strict XHTML 1.1 code.

and is it served as application/xhtml+xml by default too? Because there's a certain browser by Microsoft that can't handle that...

Re:Hmm. First example of it. (2, Interesting)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478805)

Its served as to whatever is crossbrowser. The team that makes VS isn't the team that makes IE, and are probably as pissed off as we all are about how uncompliant it is (for example, the design view for ASP.NET in VS2005 renders correctly a bunch of CSS that IE will ignore even though its in the specs, AND will bitch and whine quite a bit if you dare use a IE CSS filter).

That being said, last I checked, VS2005 default to XHTML 1.0 transitional, not XHTML 1.1 strict :)

Re:Hmm. First example of it. (1)

MeNeXT (200840) | more than 7 years ago | (#18479029)

It's not. The only time Microsoft talks of open standards is when Microsoft does not have a majority market share. If Microsoft was serious of open standards then they would publish the standards to their protocols.

Re:Hmm. First example of it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18480141)

"...nevermind that VS2005 defaults to strict XHTML 1.1 code."

Ironic given that their IE7 isn't compliant with that level. But I guess there is hope in the future.

Re:Hmm. First example of it. (0, Troll)

mikkelm (1000451) | more than 7 years ago | (#18477753)

Yes. Let us criticise Microsoft for not destroying their own business model in the name of Open Source. Anything short of self-destructive publication just isn't good enough. Curse Microsoft for not killing themselves off to appease the FOSS crowd.

Re:Hmm. First example of it. (2, Insightful)

flydpnkrtn (114575) | more than 7 years ago | (#18477781)

I wasn't implying that they "destroy their business model" in the name of open source... I'm saying that they're doing this because "the web demands open standards" and it looks good on the PR front ("hay guys we embrace open source"), not because it's the right thing to do.

MS would use closed, proprietary, patented protocols/standards (furthering vendor lock-in) wherever they could, if people didn't immediately jump to Apache/PHP if they did.

Re:Hmm. First example of it. (1)

mikkelm (1000451) | more than 7 years ago | (#18479393)

Releasing source code and fully disclosing protocol specifications on the products Microsoft build their entire business on selling will destroy their business model.

You get modded +5 insightful for complaining that Microsoft isn't doing every possible thing, including completely destroying their own business model, as their first step towards an open policy. Only on slashdot.

Re:Hmm. First example of it. (1, Insightful)

khuber (5664) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478163)

Thank you token fanboy. Listen, Microsoft can have whatever damned business model they want. But is it too much to ask for them to display some ethical behavior and not lie and say they "enable open standards"?

Re:Hmm. First example of it. (1)

mikkelm (1000451) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478909)

Token fanboy? Listen, I couldn't care who or what made which operating system and how good or bad it is and what kind of practices they employ.

I think you might want to read the grandparent. You're rant is completely irrelevant. Thank you, token angry nerd.

Re:Hmm. First example of it. (2, Insightful)

MeNeXT (200840) | more than 7 years ago | (#18479173)

WHAT? They don't even follow HTML standards and yet you believe they follow standards that will sit on top of HTML. Actions speak louder than words. IE 7 is not standards compliant. I strongly believe that Microsoft has no intention of following any standard.

When IE starts supporting standards then I'll believe Microsofts claim of standards based Internet.

Re:Hmm. First example of it. (1)

mikkelm (1000451) | more than 7 years ago | (#18479351)

Kindly point out where I made any sort of claim about any kind of compliance to anything.

Re:Hmm. First example of it. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#18479379)

Yes. Let us criticise Microsoft for not destroying their own business model in the name of Open Source. Anything short of self-destructive publication just isn't good enough. Curse Microsoft for not killing themselves off to appease the FOSS crowd.
Thank you for confirming that Microsoft's business model is deliberately fucking up standards, all the while declaring that they're in favor of them.

Yes, I would like to see that particular business model destroyed.

Re:Hmm. First example of it. (1)

mikkelm (1000451) | more than 7 years ago | (#18479507)

Thank you for confirming that the average slashdotter is incapable of comprehending that change is gradual, and a 180 turn will always result in periods of hypocrisy.

Re:Hmm. First example of it. (3, Interesting)

stikves (127823) | more than 7 years ago | (#18477983)

It's true that Microsoft used a "vendor specific" byte in Kerberos protocol to keep SAMBA out (at least for a while). It's not good.

But Microsoft also handles many protocols nicely (as long as it's on the server side), and provides easy to use GUIs to setup and administer them.

For example, let's say I want to store all my infrastructure for user accounts, X509 certificate and DNS services and email configuration on a LDAP directory and would like to access via Kerberos as well.

The setup wizard for Active Directory will handle all these tasks (automatically) in less than 10 minutes (and add 30 minutes setup for Exchange and service packs). Additionally I'll receive many administration GUIs, fully redundant setup and backup programs. (Not including group policy which does not have a good alternative on Linux side yet).

On the other hand the same infrastructure setup on linux (with Fedora Directory Server or similar), requires coding plenty of scripts (LDAP gateway, sendmail configurations, kerberos password migration, etc, etc) and will probably take 3 days at best. Additionally I'll have to setup Amanda and similar backup strategies by hand.

So, I'd either choose to invest $1000 on a Windows Server 2003 license once, or hire an administrator with $1000 more salary per month than a current one.

Unfortunately many enterprises choose the first one

(btw our current setup uses Fedora Directory Server as main, while we also have an Active Directory installation in parallel, yet this is only because we're a university and we like to experiment more).

Re:Hmm. First example of it. (3, Interesting)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478567)

"It's true that Microsoft used a "vendor specific" byte in Kerberos protocol to keep SAMBA out (at least for a while). It's not good.

But Microsoft also handles many protocols nicely (as long as it's on the server side), and provides easy to use GUIs to setup and administer them.

For example, let's say I want to store all my infrastructure for user accounts, X509 certificate and DNS services and email configuration on a LDAP directory and would like to access via Kerberos as well."

So, you mean that they abuse their economical power... But it is ok, since they do that with a nice GUI? Or are you saying (falsely) that Microsoft has not extended those protocols? Because they have extended (or tried) almost all of them, DNS being the only exception, and irrelevant since they already tried to extend TCP.

"The setup wizard for Active Directory will handle all these tasks (automatically) in less than 10 minutes (and add 30 minutes setup for Exchange and service packs). Additionally I'll receive many administration GUIs, fully redundant setup and backup programs. (Not including group policy which does not have a good alternative on Linux side yet).

On the other hand the same infrastructure setup on linux (with Fedora Directory Server or similar), requires coding plenty of scripts (LDAP gateway, sendmail configurations, kerberos password migration, etc, etc) and will probably take 3 days at best. Additionally I'll have to setup Amanda and similar backup strategies by hand."

Now, you seem to be very uninformed. There is quite a long time since people don't need to edit sendmail configs for a normal server (unless you talking about setting your netmask), Windows didn't deal with email by that time. There is less time that LDAP gateways and kerberos servers work easily, but they also do. And I'd really like to know what nice backup solution you get on Windows out of the box, even completely ignoring that to set-up amanda one just need to say where to put all those files and what to backup (I really doubt any other solution won't require that information). Someone that already knows those systems may very well configure it all on a day.

And, at leat at my box (hint, it's Debian, one of the most geeky and hard to configure distros out there) there are GUIs for most of those.

"So, I'd either choose to invest $1000 on a Windows Server 2003 license once, or hire an administrator with $1000 more salary per month than a current one.

Unfortunately many enterprises choose the first one"

That tells how good at math are those people... Of course 3 days of work by $1000 a month are much cheapper than $1000 on licences and not accounted work on making all that software work as intented.

And, are you implying that windows doesn't need maintence?!?!?!

Re:Hmm. First example of it. (3, Informative)

stikves (127823) | more than 7 years ago | (#18479131)

So, you mean that they abuse their economical power... But it is ok, since they do that with a nice GUI? Or are you saying (falsely) that Microsoft has not extended those protocols? Because they have extended (or tried) almost all of them, DNS being the only exception, and irrelevant since they already tried to extend TCP.


In order not to get further into a flamewar, it'll try to get technical.

Let's say we need to build an infrastructure on the open protocols mentioned above. While there're plenty of alternatives, one can propose Active Directory can also do the job well (this does not mean it's best or anything).

  • AD can serve a standard DNS domain (even if mixed with Linux BIND servers), including an LDAP backend and dynamic updates [ietf.org] : http://support.microsoft.com/kb/317590 [microsoft.com]
  • AD can also serve Kerberos for Linux clients (in a standard way): (here) [windowsnetworking.com] , it can also do RADIUS as well.
  • AD is LDAP compliant [microsoft.com] so use can also use nss_ldap to grab user information on Linux system from it
  • Linux and Windows nodes can perform two directional file sharing via standard* CIFS protocol [ubiqx.org]
  • AD (with addition of certificate services) can serve as s X509 Certificate Authority.
  • AD + Exchange will understand SMTP, SMTP-AUTH (over LDAP), POP3, IMAP, IMAPS, NTTP protocols (additional web based access is also provided).
  • With Windows Server 2003 R2, AD can also serve standard NIS, NFS, CUPS and similar UNIX protocols.
  • If you include non standard (but known) protocols in the mix, Windows and Linux machines can also interoperate via DFS (Distributed File Sharing), RPD (Terminal Services), etc.


    The required setup is done less than an hour, and will require a (less competent) system administrator for maintenance in the long run.

    (It can be argued that the Linux side will require a more educated - i.e: more expensive - system administrator, and preparation of many site specific scripts and configurations - yet this may not seem objective for some people).

    Don't misunderstand I'm not proposing converting all the systems to AD. I'm telling AD is also a fine solution based on open protocols.

Re:Hmm. First example of it. (2, Informative)

morcego (260031) | more than 7 years ago | (#18479247)

Humm, I won't even quote that one.

1) Just because you can do it easily doesn't mean you can do it right
2) Have you ever tried using NDS ?
3) Try using Exim instead of sendmail. You can do the "configuration" in 2 minutes or less.

I hate LDAP as much as I hate Windows AD. Even tho I don't like Novell, NDS is still the best directory server around (when you want to handle multiple platforms). Btw, unless I'm much mistaken, Novell was the one to invent directory services in the first place.

(btw, my current setups all use mysql backends, not any kind of DS)

Re:Hmm. First example of it. (2, Insightful)

The_Wilschon (782534) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478869)

The cathedral model doesn't even really refer to proprietary development. You might term the closed proprietary development model the prison model or something, the code only gets out when it has done its time. CatB discussed two open source development models, one in which potential changes were submitted to the monarch or oligarchs of a project for consideration, and one in which pretty much anybody could add stuff whenever. Microsoft uses neither of these.

In short, the difference between the cathedral and the bazaar is not and has never been the difference between closed and open source. It is the difference between two open source development strategies. If you're not sure of this, go read ESR's essay again. http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar /cathedral-bazaar/ [catb.org]

Correction (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18477709)

"The Web is built on open standards and we at Microsoft believe that we have to extend those open
standards," Abrams said.


There, fixed spelling for you. ;-)

they did the obvious but finished last (3, Insightful)

neongrau (1032968) | more than 7 years ago | (#18477715)

there are so many ajax enabled frameworks.
most if not all of them aren't even tied to a specific server-side technology -> so more choice.

they point out it's open source? hey of course it is! the major part is in javascript. it's open by design and even if it were possible to scramble, obfuscate and encrypt their code. it would be useless because developers will have the need to extend the widgets to their specific needs at a certain level.

Re:they did the obvious but finished last (3, Interesting)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18477925)

The license is very similar to the BSD style license. But more interestingly, according to open source legal, It passes on the ability to use any patents they have on it royalty "free". Something that Java SCript probably couldn't do alone.

WAR IS PEACE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18477719)

Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

Re:WAR IS PEACE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18477751)

You are obviously free based on the strength you exhibit.

Translation (0)

asninn (1071320) | more than 7 years ago | (#18477731)

Translation:

MS: We don't suck! Open soure sucks!

As long as this kind of statement is coming from Microsoft drones and spokesrobots instead of independent third parties, it's not interesting; not necessarily because it's automatically a priori untrue, but because they'd make the same statement no matter whether it is or not.

Could someone explain me wth does that mean : (2, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#18477765)

"MS No Cathedral, Open Source No Bazaar?"

what cathedral ? what bazaar ? what relation does any cathedral and bazaar have, what kind of metaphor is this, and just what the heck does that mean ?

Re:Could someone explain me wth does that mean : (2, Informative)

flydpnkrtn (114575) | more than 7 years ago | (#18477791)

See here [wikipedia.org] for an explanation

Re:Could someone explain me wth does that mean : (2, Informative)

Clazzy (958719) | more than 7 years ago | (#18477795)

http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar / [catb.org]
Written by Eric Raymond about the differences between open and closed source, pretty much.

Re:Could someone explain me wth does that mean : (3, Informative)

UncleOwl (1016926) | more than 7 years ago | (#18477819)

AFAIK, the original CatB is not so much about open vs closed source, rather than those two models used in open source context - e.g. the original GNU project was more a Cathedral, while Linux was a Bazaar.

Re:Could someone explain me wth does that mean : (4, Informative)

rfc1394 (155777) | more than 7 years ago | (#18477829)

what cathedral ? what bazaar ? what relation does any cathedral and bazaar have, what kind of metaphor is this, and just what the heck does that mean ?

This is an (indirect) reference to Eric S. Raymond [wikipedia.org] 's seminal paper, "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" [wikipedia.org] (actual essay is here [catb.org] ), in which he talks about software development being done in one of two ways, by huge development companies in commercial environments, being similar to the way medieval cathedrals were constructed, versus open-source development in which just about anyone can get involved if they want, and that development is closer to the typical bazaars where anyone can walk up and put up a booth to sell rugs. It is this paper that was basically the cause of Netscape deciding to open-source its browser.

Re:Could someone explain me wth does that mean : (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#18477877)

which lead to firefox, i believe ?

Re:Could someone explain me wth does that mean : (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18477957)

Well, it lead to Mozilla first then the Firefox offshoot.

The main difference besides timing is that Mozilla was a web suite like Netscape traditionally was were Firefox was the fist stand along browser of the legacy.

Re:Could someone explain me wth does that mean : (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18478463)

It is this paper that was basically the cause of Netscape deciding to open-source its browser.


Yeah that, and bankruptcy.

Re:Could someone explain me wth does that mean : (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 7 years ago | (#18479547)

being similar to the way medieval cathedrals were constructed, versus open-source development in which just about anyone can get involved if they want, and that development is closer to the typical bazaars where anyone can walk up and put up a booth to sell rugs

The gothic cathedral was in many ways a communal project that evolved over decades and even centuries. David Macaulay: Cathedral DVD [shoppbs.org] The medieval craft guilds had a very large say in who sold what and where. Medieval Gulds [iastate.edu] I can't find an anchorage for Raymond's analogy in any historical reality.

Re:Could someone explain me wth does that mean : (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18477839)

You HAVE to be kidding.

Re:Could someone explain me wth does that mean : (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18478999)

It's just some bullshit that ESR came up with.
Hit book, "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" is regarded as a bible among those that have bought into the OSS doctrine.
It's complete nonsense, though.

Through cathedral building history, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18477821)

there were moments where builders would share their knowledge between communities in order to improve the cathedral (or churches, really) building process as a whole and their own personal knowledge and others moments where the builders would keep their knowledge to them in order to get power among the builder society and more wealth.
So basically, the title of ESR essay is the weakest part of it.

We are all churches builders.

MS and standards (4, Insightful)

l3v1 (787564) | more than 7 years ago | (#18477843)

and we at Microsoft believe that we have to enable those open standards

Enable ? Hardly. Follow ? When PR requires. Open ? Yeah, right.

"Enable those open standards" does this even mean something ?

First they don't do it. Then they do something similar for a second and act as they've always done it and behaved accordingly forever and even act like it's their ground philosophy.

Not that I would care what a company does to ensure a certain future - economical, technical or otherwise - yet there are certain boundaries to arrogance - like in we think you're ignorant enough to eat whatever we serve you for dinner kind of arrogance - that sometimes just blows the hood.
 

Re:MS and standards (1)

26199 (577806) | more than 7 years ago | (#18479629)

Well. Taken literally "enable" means "make possible", "supply with means, knowledge, or opportunity", "give sanction to" or "make operational".

In other words: you can't play unless we let you.

The arrogance is astounding. Of course it may in fact be the case that Microsoft can make everyone pack up and go home if they want to. Does this mean they've decided to let it live?

Nah. It probably doesn't mean anything.

it's called stealing mindshare .. (1)

rs232 (849320) | more than 7 years ago | (#18479655)

'they do something similar for a second .. and even act like it's their ground philosophy'

Now that they have figured out that they can't kill open source through the pollution of open standards, they pretend to engage with it so as they can steal back mind share and subvert it from the inside. To the general public MS = computers, so it would odd that advances were happening elsewhere the MS wasn't involved in. Gets Microsoft and Open in the same sentence, get it. Watch out for a joint Open Source company + MS conference. Oh, wait .. :)

was Re:MS and standards

Open Standards == No one is Using it (4, Insightful)

segedunum (883035) | more than 7 years ago | (#18477857)

Whenever a Microsoft employee talks about using open standards you can bet it's because no one is using the particular bit of software he's talking about. As soon as a critical mass of people are using it, see the open standards mantra melt away.

"I'm not sure the bazaar analogy works," Abrams said. "Neither cathedral nor bazaar are the same in the AJAX Web space; rather there is a continuum that reaches across space."
Anyone have any idea what this claptrap means?

"In the open source world you can talk to people and get answers," Abrams said. "But we're offering guaranteed support."
Oh right, this is what it's about. You're trying to stop people from using all the open source AJAX implementations out there, and you believe one way to do this is to claim that open source software has no support? As everyone who uses this kind of stuff should know, it's far faster and more responsive to discuss things like this with like-minded people (and/or employees) on a mailing list or forum than wait for a meaningless answer from some dumb witted twit who doesn't understand the software he's been cajoled into providing support for. You're going to fail there, so no, you don't understand how people are using AJAX at all.

"The other reality is that you have work on other platform and can't afford to turn away users that are using Mac or Linux as well."
Yes, because most of the servers on the web aren't Windows, damn it! Oh sorry, that quote was taken out of context.

Forgive me for being just a tad sceptical, and wondering why this was good enough to make it as a Slashdot news story.

Re:Open Standards == No one is Using it (0)

LordEd (840443) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478383)

it's far faster and more responsive to discuss things like this with like-minded people (and/or employees) on a mailing list or forum than wait for a meaningless answer from some dumb witted twit who doesn't understand the software he's been cajoled into providing support for.
If you lose the spin placed by you and Abrams, you both said "Open source has forum-based support, and Microsoft has phone based support". Which is faster: a mailing list where somebody will volunteer an answer where they have time, or somebody on a phone who is going to stay on that phone until you get an answer? (Note: there are MS support forums as well).

I had a problem with exchange and had to use a MS support call. I had the solution within the hour. On the support line i was on, you talk to people who know about those components. I had a related problem but closer to a programming support problem, and they pulled somebody else into the call to advise as well.

Re:Open Standards == No one is Using it (1)

doktorjayd (469473) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478563)

I had a problem with exchange and had to use a MS support call. I had the solution within the hour.
i had a problem with postfix. i pushed the mesage from the error log into goole, and had the solution within minutes.

didnt cost me an M$ Gold partner status ( plus how many M$ licenses? ) to get the result i needed.

i also had another programming issue that an unrelated mailing list provided the answer for. i just asked google a different question.

or did i just look at the source for the framework i was using?

Re:Open Standards == No one is Using it (0)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478737)

::GASPS:: Big news, there are hundreds of forums about Microsoft products too, who would have thought. But when those don't work (and don't be so cocky as to think you can find ANYTHING when you need it on OSS community boards), you can call support until things get fixed (you can too with OSS if you have support contracts though). Thats what the parent meant.

Most serious Microsoft development shops or companies will have MSDN subscriptions (no need for a MS Gold partner thingy, hahaha), which ends up giving you a few support calls. These aren't with your typical outsourced tech here, but can escalate up to the person who actually coded the darn thing you have problem with (rarely, obviously). And if it takes 5 hours on the phone to fix it, they will stay 5 hours on the phone with you. Its quite useful, and cheaper than people would think... (mostly because you get the subscription for OTHER perks...where I work, most of the calls go to waste, because no one use them, hahaha)

Re:Open Standards == No one is Using it (2, Insightful)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478965)

For the cost of wasting 5 hours on the phonen of one of my technical peers, I can often contact the *author* of the open source tool and pay them for one hour of support time, at a substantial savings to my personal or my employer's bottom line.

Re:Open Standards == No one is Using it (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478945)

Next time, start the clock and measuer how long it takes. From harsh, harsh experience, the forum is faster. The last 3 MS support calls I made took at least 3 levels of escalation to get to the engineers I needed to talk to. It's even worse when I'm calling to report a bug and a workaround: I don't get credit for the fix, the fix if ever eventually provided is not properly described in the "update" list, and the bug report often vanishes into the void.

Google and public Wikies are often far, far, far faster and more detailed than the Microsoft tech support, especially for the more obscure subtleties of hardware and software interactions among products from different vendors.

Weird site, opensourcelegal.org (4, Interesting)

Gregory Cox (997625) | more than 7 years ago | (#18477955)

I don't know what to make of the opensourcelegal.org [slashdot.org] site linked to in the story.

Generally sites talking about open source tend to be keen to advocate the open source philosophy, but the tone of this site is mostly neutral and lacking any overtly expressed opinion. If anything, the page titled Why Open Source? [opensourcelegal.org] seems more negative than positive.

So perhaps the legal firm running the site is playing up the difficulties and uncertainties surrounding open source as a way of promoting its legal help on the subject? But I can't see anything on the (rather small) site advertising legal services at all. It doesn't really have enough content to get many visits for its news or information. I wonder why it was set up...

Step 1 (2)

Salsaman (141471) | more than 7 years ago | (#18477967)

Embrace.

Step 2 (3, Funny)

db32 (862117) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478585)

Unzip

Step 3 (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18478659)

Profit

The Proof Is In The Pudding: Open Source DirectX (5, Informative)

lotusleaf (928941) | more than 7 years ago | (#18477987)

Speaking of standards:

* "Microsoft breaks with standards effort" [zdnet.com] 03-25-2003
* "Microsoft quits W3C standardisation panel" [theinquirer.net] 03/24/2003

How about a free and open standard in gaming?
* "Microsoft DirectX killing innovation" [theinquirer.net] 03-27-2003

Re:The Proof Is In The Pudding: Open Source Direct (0)

tysonofyork (939435) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478193)

I'm sorry, but this just totally exhibits the pathetic nature of a lot of Slashdot users. Did you even read the articles you searched for? Or were you hell bent on finding some article that revealed Microsoft's reputation of standards non-compliance was based on fact. First of all, dropping out of a guidance group does not mean you don't follow standards. Secondly, W3C was a joke up until not too long ago. Good for them for showing their teeth.

It seems to me you guys would rather have MS as an adversary than welcoming an obvious changing attitude from them.

Re:The Proof Is In The Pudding: Open Source Direct (2, Informative)

EvilRyry (1025309) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478313)

OK, how about a more recent example then. Such as... OpenXML vs OpenDocument.
I'm sure you can find plenty of articles on slashdot for this one.

Re:The Proof Is In The Pudding: Open Source Direct (2, Insightful)

SpiritOfGrandeur (686449) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478201)

2003? This is 2007 and that is a lot of time to change your game...

Re:The Proof Is In The Pudding: Open Source Direct (1)

weicco (645927) | more than 7 years ago | (#18479135)

* "Microsoft quits W3C standardisation panel" 03/24/2003

I heard this straight from the MS representative. MS has participated in a lot of these kinds of panels and groups but has quit them because of constant resintance of their efforts, suggestions, what ever. All you can draw your conclusions what this means, of course, and this is Slashdot, so I'm pretty sure what those conclusions are...

We are from the Government.. (2, Funny)

sycodon (149926) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478053)

We are from the Government and we are here to help.

We are from Microsoft and we enable Open Standards.

Re:We are from the Government.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18478227)

We're here to protect you [albinoblacksheep.com]

ASP is not an open standard (1)

khuber (5664) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478131)

They are just spreading their filthy proprietary standards to Linux. That is doing as much to "enable open standards" as it is to solve world hunger.

Re:ASP is not an open standard (1)

tysonofyork (939435) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478229)

I don't believe he was speaking about the server side. He was speaking of the client side. You can use it with PHP as well.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! (1)

arclyte (961404) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478295)

Microsoft has finally decided that the cathedral model of development just isn't working for them anymore, so they've decided to do like the Catholic Church and disseminate their beliefs into every household so that you can be sure to have "MS Guilt" when having any unclean thoughts about OSS.

Come to think of it, their BSA raids on small businesses is kind of like the Inquisition... I guess you could have worse business models than the church. I mean, they are still around after thousands of years and still raking in the money.

The Microsoft game (0, Redundant)

Frozen Void (831218) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478301)

1.Embrace.

Clear and Correct perspective on MS. (3, Interesting)

3seas (184403) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478381)

Microsoft is first and foremost a marketing company.

They can and will say what ever they need to to get people to buy.

Second in priority is Microsoft is their own legal advisors to advise
themselves, (based on their interpretation of the law - no different
than any other lawyer or law firm) on what they can get away with, what
they can get in trouble for but balanced against what they gain in
breaking the law (do they gain more than they lose - if so then they
see it as a cost of doing business).

Third in priority is the bullying and buy out of the competition. Of
course their legal house is involved in this too.

Forth has become the application submittal for as many patents as
they can get, even stupid stuff that is clearly not patentable. In
the battle against open source this will become combined with the
third priority more and more.

What you don't see in any of the above is genuine innovation.

Microsoft does NOT enable fair play. But they often make claims
in contridiction of what they actually do.

Microsoft has a very long and hard earned reputation of being
dishonest with marketing speak.

But we all know this, those of use that read slashdot.

And slashdot users are not who this markting bull is aimed at.

Or maybe we should thank MS for enabling us to be open?

I don't get it. (1)

mux2000 (832684) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478453)

Why is MS releasing the source code of anything under a permissive license make them any less of a cathedral? Said piece of code was probably still written within MS by MS-paid employees, using a top -down well-organized approach.

And why does that make OSS any less of a bazaar? Eh?

Re:I don't get it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18479083)

Re-read the license. You're not allowed to build a fork of the software that is significantly improved in ways that are not already implemented by Microsoft or approved by Microsoft, even if you keep your source open. Such licenses have spelled slow death to various open source projects when discovered, such as the Washington University IMAP daemon and many of the tools written by Dan Bernstein, who is a brilliant program designer but shot his own software through the head with his tendency to trample on published standards for his own convenience.

Bazaar (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 7 years ago | (#18480047)

And why does that make OSS any less of a bazaar? Eh?

He doesn't say this particular release makes OSS any less of a bazaar, his statement is that most successful open source software is backed by a corporation, thus blurring the line between cathedral-bazaar. It isn't as much a bazaar as idealists like to think.

"Permissive Licence" doesn't seem awful (4, Interesting)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478573)

I noticed two main things in that license text:

You can't remove any copyright, patent, or atribution notices. Kind of like the dreaded BSD advertising clause, in that if someone puts "Parts written by 1337 h4xx0rz" in the output of the program, you have to leave it there. Repeat ad nauseum for every contributor that jumps on the bandwagon, and things could get... unaesthetic.

They use almost the exact same patent control system as the GPLv3. If a program contains patented code, you're granted permission to use those patents to execute it. If you sue one of the patent holders for violations of your own patent, that permission is revoked. I think this is called the "please don't eat me, IBM!" clause. Seriously, though, this needs to be pointed out every single time some Microsoft shill attacks the GPLv3. You can dislike v3, but you can't really call it anti-business when the world's largest software vendor implemented parts of it in their own license.

MS supports open standards... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18478953)

Like a spouse abuser shows love for his wife. There are practically NO open standards that MS products don't pervert or ignore. The marketing offal in the article summary only serves to make MS look even more ridiculous.

PDF support? Nope. SVG? Nada. OpenDocument? Yeah right. PNG? Still haven't gotten it right. CSS? Don't hold your breath. Vorbis, Theora, FLAC, Jabber? Not in your lifetime.

In fact, it seems that all MS cares about is inventing closed file formats and protocols to ensure that there is NEVER interoperability with other products. NTFS, SMB, Exchange ActiveSync, MS Office file formats, MSN Messenger protocol, WMA, WMV, DirectX and ActiveX are a few examples but there many others.

Microsoft is to interoperability like masturbation is to sex.

enabling open standards .. (1)

rs232 (849320) | more than 7 years ago | (#18478985)

'we at Microsoft believe that we have to enable those open standards'

'One strategy is to jump on the Java bandwagon and try and take control [edge-op.org] of the class libraries and runtime'

'Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Lets move on and steal [edge-op.org] the Java language'

'Outlook will not run propedy on top of GroupWise 5.1 because it uses/expects unknown MAPI calls/parameters. We have asked our normal Microsoft contacts for assistance in getting this to work .. We have been unsuccessful [edge-op.org] at getting the additional information to add support for Outlook in our MAPI service providers'

'If the application is written in Java, the Microsoft [edge-op.org] Virtual Machine for Java will be the default VM'

Sure it runs on Linux (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 7 years ago | (#18479163)

But have they created an Eclipse plugin for developing with it? This is same old MS... "We'll own the format and hence be the most capable of creating a development environment for it... then they'll have to run Windows to create the most popular content"

This is especially significant in a world where the content consumers are more and more also the content creators.

In addition at the enterprise level: AJAX isn't easy to implement when you're using it for really intense UIs... you need an IDE for this to do it well in a large organization with varying levels of programming experience. MS wants businesses to convert all their old web based or non-web based internal apps to using this stuff (killer app style) and they want to be selling the IT dept. the tools to do so. When your IT dept. runs an OS, they would rather the people they support also run that OS, makes providing 1st level support SO much easier.

Define "permisssive" (1)

BeBold (959808) | more than 7 years ago | (#18479541)

"The components are being licensed under Microsoft's permissive license..."
"To prove his point, Abrams opened up a Virtual PC window where he was running Ubuntu Linux and demonstrated how ASP.NET AJAX could run well on Ubuntu's local server."

Interesting that Microsoft's "permissive license" allows running Linux in a virtual environment with no restrictions, but for a Linux user to run Vista in a virtual environment requires purchase of their most expensive license [www.cbc.ca] .

of course not (1)

AlgorithMan (937244) | more than 7 years ago | (#18479757)

if MS was a cathedral, then Ballmer was a cardinal
but we all know (of course), that Ballmer himself is GOD!

therefore MS is not a cathedral, MS is heaven
hence a cathedral is microsofts community (both members)

Microsoft's true intent is the opposite. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18480055)

Microsoft is outright lying and saying that they embrace open standards. Their true intent is to destroy the open standards in order to dominate the software market share with their proprietary software. Always has been and always will be. Whatever demonstration they did concerning AJAX/.NET recently, I would be vigilant to accept it at face value. I keep on thinking about all those books printed on "Undocumented Windows" application programmer interfaces. I keep on thinking about a company that had a software for doubling the space of the hard drive and then went out of business when MS came out with a similar product. The other instance is Netscape and the way the internet explorer html/javascript were made different deliberately. This is not to mention Sun's java virtual machine and Microsoft's java virtual machine were made different deliberately. I am witness to the politics in business which still supports windows because Microsoft with their under-handed tactics. I recall something about promoting their software and eventually someone may be given a job at Microsoft. I also recall something about the same scenario with other related companies as well.

I do appreciate Mr. Gates donating a great deal of money to all sorts of charities, but behind those seemingly generous gestures I always have the idea there must be something in it for Microsoft in return for those gestures. I can venture to guess all the so-called research money donated towards AIDS will somehow find it's way back into the hands of scientists using Microsoft-only software.
I would love to see transparency/accountability and especially in Canada with regard to this donated money.
The latest Canadian government is very good, but I hope to see more transparency and accountability with them also. The other impact on the donation is how this will affect the politics of open-source software in CANADA. As it stands it's a no-brainer...inaction in Canada means the Microsoft OS will remain the majority OS everywhere in the Canadian government which in turn means $$$ for Microsoft. I wonder what would have been the decision if Mr. Gates had not donated any money to charities/research. Would we be using open-source operating systems today?

Could you imagine all the good it would make if all that $$$ was given to open-source/transparent/accountable medical research? Anyone on the planet could examine and could perhaps contribute to the progress of the research without having to ask. Innovation happens by accident, by necessity, by hacking and best of all by participating in the open-source community.

Have a nice day everyone.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?