×

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!

How Open Source Has Influenced Windows Server 2008

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the everyone-learning-from-everyone-else dept.

145

willdavid writes to tell us that Sam Ramji over at Port25 has a nice succinct list of the major open source principles that have been used while developing Windows Server 2008. "Overall, we've learned and continue to learn from open source development principles. These are making their way into the mindset, development practices, and ultimately into the products we bring to market. I've focused here on 'what Microsoft has learned from Open Source' - and ironically, I've agreed to do a panel at OSBC on 3/25 with Jim Zemlin of the Linux Foundation on 'what Open Source can learn from Microsoft'. As all of the different organizations in IT continue to evolve, we'll learn from each others' best practices and make increasingly better software. As in science, this incremental improvement will move all of us forward."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

145 comments

Frosty Poophole (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22602520)

Microsoft shits on the world with its Frosty Poophole, Steaming Turd Edition 2008.
 

What they can learn (3, Insightful)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 6 years ago | (#22602550)

'what Open Source can learn from Microsoft'

Wait, wait...how to release commercial software on par with an untested, alpha Linux flavor and have all their customers switch back to an old version?

Or maybe how to give consumers what they "want"?

Re:What they can learn (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22602788)

Or maybe how to give consumers what they "want"?
Indeed. I, for one, am happy that the programs I was running on a Linux 1.0 kernel will run flawlessly on the Linux 2.6 kernel without modification. I'm continually surprised that the rich legacy of Linux apps will continue working unmodified because the developers put so much time and effort to ensure backwards compatibility.
 

Re:What they can learn (4, Informative)

rmdir -r * (716956) | more than 6 years ago | (#22603054)

Indeed. I, for one, am happy that the programs I was running on a Linux 1.0 kernel will run flawlessly on the Linux 2.6 kernel without modification

You want to run buggy versions of GCC and Apache?

All joking aside, as long as you didn't use glib/statically compiled your application, I believe Linux 1.0 apps WILL run flawlessly on Linux 2.6 kernels. The kernel's userspace ABI has been very stable.

(Of course internal ABI/API stability has historically been on the order of six months :P).

Re:What they can learn (1)

Scott Wood (1415) | more than 6 years ago | (#22605792)

The problem with that is that most things aren't statically compiled. And no, it's not old versions of GCC or Apache that I want to run, but older games, including those by a certain porting house that went out of business and can't release patches. :-)

Re:What they can learn (1)

Shulai (34423) | more than 6 years ago | (#22606802)

You are just going out of luck. a.out loader is just being phased out of the ELF kernels.

Re:What they can learn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22606704)

I sure as hell hope you meant glibc. You said glib, which didn't even exist back then.

Re:What they can learn (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22604928)

'what Open Source can learn from Microsoft'

Well, Teh Lunix on Teh Desktop has just been trying to recreate Windows 95 for over a decade (and failing, but that's beside the point).

I guess another thing Open Source can learn is that they need to serve the needs of their customers. Teh Lunix has a market share under 1% for good reason. Windows may not be perfect... but Teh Lunix is even less so. If Windows users have trouble installing drivers... what are they going to do with Lunix, which needs to have applications installed almost by hand, has to have all new hardware manually configured, and heck... it may not even be able to run after installing unless your video, network card, etc are set up manually.

Wait, wait...how to release commercial software on par with an untested, alpha Linux flavor and have all their customers switch back to an old version?

I think you guys can just learn that from Apple. That Leoptard is a great teacher!

Or maybe how to give consumers what they "want"?

Teh Lunix's marketshare shows you exactly what consumers "want", doesn't it?

IMO, it's pretty damn sad how the iPhone has a larger install base than your operating system.

Re:What they can learn (0, Troll)

hackus (159037) | more than 6 years ago | (#22606634)

This is a bunch of crap.

I call it as I see it, and this is about as crappy as it gets.

There is no FREAKING way Microsoft can do any of those 8 things if they want to stay in business.

So this is all PR.

Microsoft is the poster child of lock in, proprietary closed and SECRET API's.

I wouldn't take any of this seriously and really wonder why this even made Slashdot news.

What a joke.

I also do not believe any of the crapola this guy is espousing about "we can learn from each other".

Crap crap crap.

Open source doesn't need Microsoft PERIOD.

If open source needs anything it is MORE PEOPLE writing MORE OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE.

It sure in the hell doesn't need ANYTHING from Microsoft.

-Hack

Embrace, extend, extinguish? (4, Insightful)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 6 years ago | (#22602576)

Isn't their philosophy to try to take ownership of anything that threatens their business?

What FOSS can learn from MS? (3, Insightful)

jhines (82154) | more than 6 years ago | (#22602584)

So it is a listing of things NOT to do in an OS.

Re:What FOSS can learn from MS? (3, Insightful)

Rary (566291) | more than 6 years ago | (#22603614)

So it is a listing of things NOT to do in an OS.

If you don't want your OS to become the dominant OS in the PC market, yes.

Re:What FOSS can learn from MS? (5, Insightful)

strabes (1075839) | more than 6 years ago | (#22604134)

Windows' market share obviously has nothing to do with its quality.

Re:What FOSS can learn from MS? (2, Funny)

smoothdogg00 (1202763) | more than 6 years ago | (#22604972)

You must be joking... there will never be a day when the quality of any Linux distribution is higher than the latest Windows distribution. Say what you want about Vista, its a great OS. Linux is for the "non-conformists" who want to seem smart, or for those who don't want to pay for an OS.

Re:What FOSS can learn from MS? (1)

pdusen (1146399) | more than 6 years ago | (#22604986)

By that logic, Linux's market share must have EVERYTHING to do with its quality, no?

Re:What FOSS can learn from MS? (-1, Troll)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#22605246)

Says you. Not all of us are irrational Microsoft-haters, and recognize that Windows is actually a pretty good OS. Pretty good + marketing skills = win.

Re:What FOSS can learn from MS? (1)

strabes (1075839) | more than 6 years ago | (#22605422)

You must never have installed windows on a laptop. My dislike for Microsoft is not irrational; drop the ad hominem.

Re:What FOSS can learn from MS? (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#22605506)

I most certainly have. It works fine. And calling Windows a bad OS is irrational. It's not an ad hominem, ad hominem would be if I called you a moron or something. Irrational is entirely different.

Re:What FOSS can learn from MS? (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 6 years ago | (#22606988)

If you want to make money, ignoring 80% of your potential market is irrational.

If you want a hobby that pays for itself, rationality doesn't come into it.

Re:What FOSS can learn from MS? (3, Insightful)

rbanffy (584143) | more than 6 years ago | (#22606962)

"If you don't want your OS to become the dominant OS in the PC market, yes."

Windows' dominance has pretty little to do with Windows per se. Microsoft got lucky (and that "luck" is remarkably disputable as it seems possible they set IBM up) when they launched Windows 3 and abandoned OS/2 development to rename OS/2 3.0 as NT. Windows 3, 3.1, WfW were very popular partly because software makers embraced them. Shortly after that, Microsoft inked highly desirable exclusive deals with OEMs and _that_, not Windows, like the clever deal with IBM about exclusivity and PC-DOS that allowed the clone industry to exist, was key to their position in the market now.

Very little changed.

If Linux is ever to get the dominance Microsoft enjoys today, the key is not R&D but the relationship with OEMs and software makers.

Re:What FOSS can learn from MS? (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 6 years ago | (#22606590)

Actually, the only thing that the FLOSS community needs to do is learn about everything that Microsoft has ever done, and do the exact opposite...

Re:What FOSS can learn from MS? (1)

opieum (979858) | more than 6 years ago | (#22606690)

Heh seeing MS track record, I wonder how much FOSS code actually is in the OS itself. Did they pilfer elements of ReactOS? WINE? SAMBA? Linux iteself? Be intresting to see if the Windows code ever were to be mysteriously leaked. And I am sure it can and will eventually happen.

I would be careful (3, Funny)

hax0r_this (1073148) | more than 6 years ago | (#22602634)

.. about learning anything from Microsoft. They're probably just going to sue you for it.

Re:I would be careful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22602768)

What about the not to sue covenants for OOXML etc?
I think they are serious about not suing with trouble with the EU and others.

Re:I would be careful (4, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22602878)

I see no reason to believe Microsoft on OOXML. Besides, it's a shitty, unimplementable format.

Close... (1)

Bluewraith (1226564) | more than 6 years ago | (#22602706)

"Overall, we've learned and continue to learn from open source development principles. These are making their way into the mindset, development practices, and ultimately into the products we bring to market."
They may have learned a few key points about open source and its effectiveness, but they are leaving out one important part. The OPEN SOURCE.
Then again, I'm not too sure if I would even want to look at their source codes.

Re:Close... (1, Insightful)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#22602900)

They may have learned a few key points about open source and its effectiveness, but they are leaving out one important part. The OPEN SOURCE.

Maybe the open source part really isn't the important part of building good open source software? The open part gets you developers that work mostly for free, but MS already has plenty of developers, so opening doesn't benefit them.

Re:Close... (3, Insightful)

debatem1 (1087307) | more than 6 years ago | (#22603848)

Not all developers can contribute equal value to your project, however. One of the big benefits to open source is that your developer base and your user base coincide a lot more. I wouldn't care to estimate the odds that if one customer wants a feature badly enough to code it, somebody else wants it badly enough to switch to your product for it, but they seem pretty good for something that's free.

Re:Close... (0)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#22603988)

Not all developers can contribute equal value to your project, however.

That's the same regardless of open or closed source.

One of the big benefits to open source is that your developer base and your user base coincide a lot more.

I would say that's a net negative. You end up with software geared toward other software devleopers, not typical home users.

I wouldn't care to estimate the odds that if one customer wants a feature badly enough to code it, somebody else wants it badly enough to switch to your product for it, but they seem pretty good for something that's free.

I would think very low. You also make the assumption that closed source vendors aren't deliverying what their customers want. I don't think that's true, as there are lots of vendors out there and they'd be out of business.

Re:Close... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22604736)

I would say that's a net negative. You end up with software geared toward other software devleopers, not typical home users. not true. with FOSS there can exist more than one fork of the code that can still remain compatible with one another [ubuntu, linux mint and debian for example] which compete with each other without being completely different beasts all together. forks that listen to their users more tend to grow over time, forks that don't die off or at the least lose users. eg. debian as an example, very good distro once you get the hang of it but ubuntu being based off debian goes in a diffeent direction, more user friendly and look what it has done for them. they now make up about 1/3 of all linux distro users easily overtaking debian its self. there are already new forks of even ubuntu that have a lot of promise which may in time replace ubuntu as the favorite. that's how it goes with FOSS. now look at the proprietary OSes like Mac or Windows: you can't fork them, there is only one major up to date version that you're pretty much stuck with. if you don't like where the development is heading, you can't really do anything about it other than switch to a completely different OS that likely has compatibility problems with software you used before. heck there are combatibility problems between windows OSes that you can not really solve because of the fact you don't have access to any of the source code. you can't optimize or strip out anything, you can't do a lot of things because of even as simple as it says you can't under the EULA. everything about it is anti-user, pro-software company.

I wouldn't care to estimate the odds that if one customer wants a feature badly enough to code it, somebody else wants it badly enough to switch to your product for it, but they seem pretty good for something that's free. I would think very low. You also make the assumption that closed source vendors aren't deliverying what their customers want. I don't think that's true, as there are lots of vendors out there and they'd be out of business.
like I said before, a lot of it has to do with software. if a game works on windows, it WILL NOT WORK ON ANY OTHER PLATFORM. it doesn't matter whether or not windows sucks, you can't just move anywhere else if you still want your software to work and that's the point. it's not competing on quality, it's vender lock in. software is written for windows because it is the dominant OS platform and it is dominance is closely tied to the fact that it is the defacto OS. don't believe me? go into any store you like, whether it be bestbuy, circuit city etc. and find one piece of software written to be usable on anything other than windows. not 10, not 5 just one and see how far you get.

Re:Close... (1)

debatem1 (1087307) | more than 6 years ago | (#22605992)

Your argument is predicated on the idea that your end user is not a developer. In many of the areas that open source shines, there is at least significant overlap between those groups. To say, for instance, that getting code as feedback for a project like GCC is a 'net negative' would be quite foolish, ditto for projects like Apache or Emacs. Of course, developers need desktops too, but the success of OSS in developing desktop software has been somewhat more limited than in the more technical communities, doubtless at least in part to the perceived weakness you point out, so in that case I would say you may be right.

As for the assumption that "closed source vendors aren't delivering what their customers want", I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the fact is that they aren't. That doesn't in any way diminish the fact that open source vendors aren't either, but if everybody was absolutely hunky-dory with every piece of software on the market, nobody would sell anything and we'd all get to find new jobs. The software market, however, is far from placidly sterile, with fiercely competitive entities (both closed and open) fighting for users and market share. In large part, it will be the group that delivers the most and most relevant features who will 'win' in such environments, and that means that having this kind of feedback can be the difference between a successful company or project, and a chapter 11 filing or 404 page. Again, I hesitate to speculate, but the odds that what one customer wants another one does too seem pretty good to me. The fact that the first one wanted it badly enough to write the code for it, or to hire somebody to write the code for it, is a even stronger indication that there is a need for software that does that.

Speaking to the point about not all developers being equal, I think you may have misunderstood. My point was that code that comes from people using the software is more likely to reflect the needs of people who use the software than code that comes down from on high. Obviously, many development teams are required to go through exhaustive testing processes before their software is allowed out into the wider world, but lets face it- startlingly few developers in corporate programming actually use the code they write. That's a problem, and it's not one that's going to be solved by any specific remedy I can think of, otherwise I'd be in Monte Carlo sipping a drink and being fawned over by skinny brainless women instead of writing this little diatribe.

All I'm saying is that OSS seems to be on to something when it comes to certain types of development. It is definitely working, and I can tell you that most of the people I do business with don't give a tinker's damn what the initial cost of their software is if it doesn't save them money down the road. There is a compelling argument to be made for code as feedback, and for the competitiveness of software developed by its own end users. What remains to be seen now is whether the OSS community can withstand the inevitable uptick of consumers who are not developers that have come with its incursions into desktop software.

Re:Close... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22605210)

They may have learned a few key points about open source and its effectiveness, but they are leaving out one important part. The OPEN SOURCE.
Interestingly, there are a number of 'internal open source' initiatives at microsoft- technologies and toolsets that we're free to adopt, adapt, improve, and build upon. I 'own' one such technology here, in the sense that I'm responsible for working with contributors, developing new features, reviewing changes, and ensuring that the quality bar is high. I work with a lot of different groups who use 'our' code, anybody with the right NDA can view and modify. This development model represents a pretty significant sea-change in the working culture here, and I think it's a mistake to underestimate the signifigance of it. That you're hearing rhetoric out of the suit's heads that doesn't equate open source with the devil and communism means leadership has noticed how successful our internal open-sourcing has been in terms of engineering and quality. We're moving in that direction.
I know, it's not the same thing- but if you had a multi-bazillion-dollar revenue stream based on selling software, would you at least think twice about handing out source if you hadn't already? These things take time.

Star Trek analogy (3, Insightful)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | more than 6 years ago | (#22602712)

-Microsoft Cube is hailing us, Captain!
-Bring it up on the main screen. ...
We are Microsoft. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be Embraced.

Re:Star Trek analogy (1)

zotz (3951) | more than 6 years ago | (#22603272)

"I see a red door and I want it painted black."

Take on of your mother's little helpers. Fix ya right up.

all the best,

drew

Open source development principles? (5, Insightful)

Spinlock_1977 (777598) | more than 6 years ago | (#22602770)

...open source development principles?

What are those, exactly? I'll bet he couldn't name them. I'll bet no one can. It's a bazaar, not a cathedral!

Windows has always been influenced by competition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22602782)

When I started in the business the difference between Windows For Workgroups and HP Openview and Solaris workstations was glaring. The *nix workstations were built on OS cores that were superior in protected memory, remote management, group management and could run server apps. WfWwas a clunky DOS shell. No reliability, no remote management, no group management, and the idea of running a server app was ridiculous.

Today 2003/IIS 6 changes all of that. MS kept their natural monopoly in the application space while they made their OS reliable, with remote management, and group management. And shocking new concepts like configurations in readable files and installation with simple directory copies. The idea of running server apps on windows is no longer a joke. And people have been running perl, php, and scripting with JavaScript instead of vb/asp for a long long time.

The differences between 2008 and 2003 seem like tiny refinements compared to the massive changes between WfW and 2003/IIS6.

Re:Windows has always been influenced by competiti (0, Troll)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 6 years ago | (#22602856)

Did it hurt when your soul got sucked out?

Just curious, cause there's this Aston Martin I've had my eye on...

The soul is a religious concept (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22602938)

Much like your religious views on operating systems.

It didn't hurt because I dont have a soul.

It probably hurts more to be a zealot spending their entire life fretting about nonsense like MS.

You will die unhappy.

Re:The soul is a religious concept (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22603458)

Nice of you to join us Steve Ballmer.

While they are at it. (2, Funny)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 6 years ago | (#22602792)

Maybe they will release more specs to their API so we can make our own damn Windows OS, with hookers and blackjack, forget the hookers and and backjack, forget the whole damned thing!

Lessons Learned (5, Funny)

thomas.galvin (551471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22602826)

Open standards, choice of platform, no vendor lock-in, release-early-release-often, user-modifiable programs, ability to fork... yeah, they've learned all kinds of stuff from Open Source.

Cue Henry Spencer quote (5, Informative)

DrYak (748999) | more than 6 years ago | (#22603472)

yeah, they've learned all kinds of stuff from Open Source.


As Henry Spencer has said (and also as quoted by some commentators on the original page) :

Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.


Microsoft just fails to understand what actually makes the success of Linux and F/LOSS, and thus they are only ble to pull out pale copy of what they think they've seen in order to fill such PR announcements.

----

As an example, their entry about "Modular architectures" is almost funny if not tragic, citing OpenOffice.org and Mozilla Firefox as examples (which are actually criticized by the Linux community sometimes for being too bloated). What makes *nices systems cool isn't the ability to stuff plugins into big apps, what makes them cool is the "Unix way" : programs that just do 1 thing but do it well. Modularity is about all these small single-function programs and all those libraries (for ex.: pattern finding, on-the-fly compression, conversion filters, multimedia processing, etc) that can be freely played with by the user and assembled into more complex never-intended-for-this-usage construction, which forms the basis for huge application like those cited above. Application like VLC aren't an example of modularity, but an example of what modularity enables by putting together a bunch of functions already provided by libraries.

Also the ultimate advantage of F/LOSS is about freedom and the feeling that the software you have belongs to you. Something that is completely un-achievable with Microsoft style softwares.

Henry Spencer is a windbag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22604060)

I hate the tools who trot out Henry Spencer's soundbite as if it meant something. What OSes did Spencer write?

As Voltaire said "A witty saying proves nothing."

Re:Cue Henry Spencer quote (2, Interesting)

kmike (31752) | more than 6 years ago | (#22604122)

Their goal isn't to copy F/LOSS or the principles of open source movement,but to influence the general public (or at least those pointy-haired guys in charge) so it will associate MS products with Open Source and openness in general. This rhetoric does just that, nothing more, nothing less.

The recent "opening" of some of MS protocols and specifications blends well into this PR strategy.

One other quote (1)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | more than 6 years ago | (#22604518)

One of my .sigs, seen on Slashdot: "Choice, flexibility and cost are really the driving factors [for Linux adoption]. And Microsoft would have to stop being Microsoft to ever compete with that combination." - emkey [slashdot.org]

Re:Cue Henry Spencer quote (0, Flamebait)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#22605400)

Also the ultimate advantage of F/LOSS is about freedom and the feeling that the software you have belongs to you. Something that is completely un-achievable with Microsoft style softwares.
If that were the ultimate advantage, OSS would have a grim future indeed. The ultimate advantage (or disadvantage, depending on the program) is the quality of the software, not some ideology. Period. Unless you prefer to not actually use your software, I guess.

what microsoft can learn from open source (1)

OrochimaruVoldemort (1248060) | more than 6 years ago | (#22602840)

always allow community modding, never lock up the source code, make applications on all platforms.

Re:what microsoft can learn from open source (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22602950)

You forgot "be able to download the source|binaries|ISOs and run it for free".

Ramji doesn't understand a thing. (5, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22602886)

Oh, look! It's Sam Ramji, showing he knows nothing about open source principles.

Modular architectures
You can find these wherever you see participation at scale - and often a rearchitecture to a more modular system precedes expanded participation. Great examples of this are Firefox, OpenOffice, and X11 - from both the historical rearchitecture and the increased participation that resulted. The Apache HTTP server and APR are good examples that have been modular for as long as I can recall.
OpenOffice? Modular? Maybe OOo is developed in a modular way, but the end result is hardly anything but modular. In fact, it's quite monolithic -- when you start OpenOffice Writer, you also start OpenOffice Calc, Base, Draw, Impress, etc.

Programming language agnostic
A given project uses a consistent language, but there are no rules on what languages are in scope or out of scope. Being open to more languages means opportunity to attract more developers - the diversity of PHP/Perl/Python/Java has been a core driver in the success of a number of projects including Linux.
Open source projects are 'programming language agnostic' because they used public, published and open interfaces. They follow standards. The reason a the Linux kernel build process can be a mixture of bash, Python, Perl, awk, etc. is that all of these things can connect together using pipes and whatnot. The reason you can write GNOME applications in almost any programming language is that the APIs are completely open. The reason why AbiWord and KWord can read Open Document Text files is that that spec is completely open and free of royalties, patents, etc.

Feedback-driven development
The "power user" as product manager is a powerful shift in how to build and tune software - and this class of users includes developers who are not committing code back, but instead submitting CRs and defects - resulting in a product that better fits its end users.
Huh? How are CRs the same as accepting code patches? Open Source development differs in that these "power users" as he calls them can make their own changes and, if necessary, fork off their project to offer a competing or even a completely different project.

Built-for-purpose systems
frequently seen in applications of Linux, the ability to build a system that has just what is needed to fulfill its role and nothing else (think of highly customizable distributions like Gentoo or BusyBox, as well as fully custom deployments).
Uhhhh....BusyBox is not a "distribution" and cannot really be compared to Gentoo except that, yes, the program (as in single program, hence, not a distribution) is cutomizable through the use of custom build options.

Sysadmins who write code
ability of a skilled system administrator to write the "last mile" code means that they can make a technology work in their particular environment efficiently and often provide good feedback to developers. This is so fundamental to Unix and Linux environments that most sysadmins are competent programmers.
Unix sysadmins are generally NOT competent programmers. We're lazy schmucks who whip up quick-and-dirty scripts to accomplish tedious and boring tasks out of sheer laziness. And then we call it 'enhancing productivity' in an attempt to get a raise. :)

Standards-based communication
Whether the standard is something from the IETF or W3C, or simply the implementation code itself, where these are used projects are more successful (think of Asterisk and IAX2) and attract a larger ecosystem of software around them.
Real open standards are developed by the community at large through agreement, not by a monopoly who can change the "standard" at anytime without notice.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with that. (4, Insightful)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 6 years ago | (#22603694)

He/they have learned something from Open Source software and principles.

It may not have been what you wanted them to learn, though. Frankly, a Microsoft may (metaphorically) buy things at your church bake sale or play basketball with your kids, but they're never going to convert to your religion.

Re:I'm going to respectfully disagree with that. (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22605274)

Free and Open Source Software is NOT a religion for me. Notice I didn't use the 'Free Software' moniker or the name 'GNU/Linux' spread by the Disciples of Stallman. Not that I entirely disagree with RMS or the FSF on many principles, but I see the Free and Open Source movements as complimentary -- together they are pushing for what it is important engineering-wise (the "knowledge of the masses" or ESR's Bazaar concept from CatB), as well what is important technology policy wise -- the use of truly open standards, APIs, specifications and source code so that this technology we're creating can outlive us and successive generations. Technology needs to be transparent because no matter how you look at it, companies like Microsoft will not be here forever. Unfortunately, we're treating out data as if they will be. This is a mistake that costs industries billions every year.

I'm a practical guy. I use what works. But I also believe that monopolistic vendor lock-in practices are undercutting society and stifling the growth of technology. It's time for these practices be put to an end. Q.E.D.

Re:I'm going to respectfully disagree with that. (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 6 years ago | (#22605658)

I'd consider myself practical as well, really.

Where we diverge is that I see the Cathedral and the Bazaar as complementary rather than antithetical, encouraging the growth of technology taken as a whole, not stifling it.

There are kinds of software that each, in a vacuum, is good at producing, and kinds of software that they aren't good at producing. If Open Office is "good enough" for many purposes, it's because it stands on the shoulders of Cathedral giants like Office. If Windows Server 2008 is a good server OS, it's because it's learned so much about how to make a good one from Linux. (Although I'd probably pick Team Foundation Server as a much better example of what I see as a great closed source product that absolutely could not have existed without a dozen great open source projects blazing trails in different areas.)

Some projects need a single, unifying vision or the willingness to write code that the developer doesn't personally want; some projects really need strong security or any of a hundred other things that a thousand pairs of eyes on the source provide. I think we're better for a world where both are possible.

Re:Ramji doesn't understand a thing. (1)

Crispy Critters (226798) | more than 6 years ago | (#22603756)

"Oh, look! It's Sam Ramji, showing he knows nothing about open source principles."

He seems to be conflating open source principles and the Unix philosophy. Perhaps a principle of open source would be, um, opening the source.

Re:Ramji doesn't understand a thing. (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 6 years ago | (#22603814)

Your comments are very educational. I would ask that you please not feed the Vole. We don't want to educate them. Let them falter and fall on their own. Why put more money into the hands of an abusive convicted monopolist? Don't put any more money in their hands by telling them where they are wrong. Sometimes it is just best to not say anything and let them falter and fall. They certainly won't point out what you don't understand, based on those same principles. They won't educate you, at least not for free, so don't feed the Vole.

Re:Ramji doesn't understand a thing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22604244)

The "Vole"? Seriously? WTF is wrong with you people? I love free software, but every day I realize more and more that the "community" is just broken beyond repair.

Re:Ramji doesn't understand a thing. (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 6 years ago | (#22603834)

The reason why AbiWord and KWord can read Open Document Text files is that that spec is completely open and free of royalties, patents, etc.


Oh sure they are, until some douchebag patents the prior art and it gets rubber-stamped by the USPTO.

What Open Source Can Learn From Microsoft (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22602918)

Hmm interesting...

If you just say it's great you can get more of the market.

If you say you innovate people believe you.

If you name your product close to the more popular true standard you can confuse the PHBs into paying you money instead.

If the competition is winning tell everyone your competitor is unfair to competition.

If people like a bad practice, and it's yours, then keep doing it.

There more money in prolonging the problem then just putting out a solution.

If you can convince a big bux company to buy your product it is a good vehicle for the advertising/PR department.

No mater how much you neglect your customers' previous purchases, privacy and security, you can still keep them buying your products.

oh lordy (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 6 years ago | (#22602936)

what open source can learn from Microsoft
You mean like how to rush stuff to market? Or perhaps how to copy features (poorly) from successful competing products and patent as your own? Or maybe you mean how to publish an API in which you promise not to sue people for utilizing it, only to stab your users in the back as soon as they make something better than you (that's soon to come down the pipe I'm sure)? I've said it once and I'll say it a million times. Fuck off Microsoft. The world doesn't need you. Sooner or later the rest of the world will realize that and throw you away like a parking ticket.

oh this is easy.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22602976)

Develop software around the hardware. Not the other way around.
NUFF sed. Everyones happy. Except M$ shareholders.

TOP of the list (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22603012)

1. Closed source pays better,
2. gets more users,
3. looks much better on the deskop, and,
4. pays better

Software Engineering 101? (5, Interesting)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 6 years ago | (#22603058)

What the article lists as "lessons to be learned from Open Source" is what is usually taught in Software Engineering 101. Come on, Modular Architecture, language agnostic coding, follow standards... This is the lesson from Open Source? These are basic things that every software manager should know.

The problem with MSFT is not that they don't know these things. They do. But the internal power structure in MSFT is so driven by "if the playing field is level, we will lose" cowards. So they still do things that was ok when they held a 20% share against Word Perfect and 10% (by revenue) share against unix and mainframe giants, back in the late 80 and early 90s. They got lots of money and grew too fat and have too many layers of management. So they go and hire this dogbert to tell them what they already know.

When did Linux stop being "cancer" & "communis (0, Troll)

christian.einfeldt (874074) | more than 6 years ago | (#22603060)

I hope the first thing that Microsoft learns is that we in the FOSS community are not stupid, and we remember being called "cancer" and "communists". I personally will welcome Microsoft when they GPL Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office. Until then, I am inclined to believe that it is just preparation for more "extend, embrace, and extinguish."

Sam offered to come speak at our local LUG, and we turned him down, because we didn't think that he had anything of relevance to say to us. So be advised, Microsoft is sending Sam out on a tour to make nicey with the FOSS communities. But until they GPL Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office, it is still all part of "extend, embrace and extinguish" the cancerous commies.

FOSS can learn from Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22603336)

FOSS is a community. Individuals with self-concern who cooperate to further their own ends. Successful communities sometimes impose restrictions on one another (like, giving your source away), but achieve amazing results (think about all the software that costs $0, yet has value in terms of $billion!)

Microsoft is a corporation. The only motive of a corporation is to make a profit for the shareholders. On the surface, these may seem similar, but they are very different. A community cares about it's own; a corporation will willingly sacrifice one of its own in order to make a profit. Communities depend on voluntary participation; ideal conditions for a corporation are addicted users who *must* have their product and cannot meet their needs by any other means (especially their own means!) Communities don't destroy their environments for the same reason that individuals don't destroy their own property. Corporations will attempt to extract as much value from the environment as they can without regard to the potentially damaging effects.

Anthropomorphically; communities are well-rounded adjusted individuals, corporations are profit-obsessed sociopaths.

Learn it well.

Re:FOSS can learn from Microsoft (3, Interesting)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 6 years ago | (#22604198)

Bottom line is that the OSS model will surpass the closed source model in time. It has no choice but to do that. Open cooperative community development has no choice but to meet and exceed that of the closed source model due primarily in that it is very evolutionary. The OSS industry will update faster (bug fixes and new features) than the closed source with the typical 18 month to 5 year product cycle of the closed source. Given time the OSS industry will create more useful features and modify those features over and over long before equivalent features will be available in the closed source market. It is like an organism that evolves more rapidly vs an organism that evolves in huge spurts with larger time intervals in-between. The organism with the shorter evolutionary steps has a greater possibility of finding flaws, correcting them, and creating new features and testing those.

Open source by its very nature will overcome monolithic development cycles of closed source, given enough time. Closed source doesn't have the time and can't experiment much. Open source has all the time in the world.

Let's also keep in mind that 1) Microsoft is a finite entity with limited number of developers and thus a limited number of ideas, where only so many of those limited ideas will pay off (this is why they steal everyone else's ideas). 2) The Open Source community has the resources of the community as it exists "world-wide" and thus has a significantly greater chance of coming up with new and unique ideas. 3) Some ideas are just obvious and that is why you see duplicity of ideas in each platform. These ideas tho can be extended and modified faster due to Open Source's ability to have more minds looking at the product and submitting coding ideas.

If any of you read the blogs of the ex-Microsofties that left just prior to or just after the Vista release you can see clearly that each developer in the Microsoft community is a microbe that has limited access to the brain and does what they are told even if the process is to redo and undo and redo the same thing again and again. This is certain to result in significant slow downs and even failures (as we have seen with Vista).

The Open Source model will succeed because it is designed to succeed whereas closed source practices dictated by a criminal monopolist to developers using their platform tools, etc., will result in systemic failure and their ultimate demise. How long will it take? It doesn't matter because the open source community has the time and the manpower.

Re:FOSS can learn from Microsoft (1)

xoundmind (932373) | more than 6 years ago | (#22605984)

How long will it take? It doesn't matter because the open source community has the time and the manpower.

Quite correct.

Oddly, this is the same strategy used by Islamic terrorists.

Re:When did Linux stop being "cancer" & "commu (1)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 6 years ago | (#22603830)

Sam offered to come speak at our local LUG, and we turned him down, because we didn't think that he had anything of relevance to say to us.

Yeah, god help you listen to anyone outside the groupthink.

Civil, open discourse on both sides can do nothing but benefit everyone. Grow up.

Re:When did Linux stop being "cancer" & "commu (3, Informative)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 6 years ago | (#22604372)

Microsoft used to contact companies during the 80s that were developing products. The ideas that were coming out were quite incredible. Pen computing was one of them. It was reported over and over again that Microsoft would ask for a presentation of the ideas of a given company's product and then a few months later announce that they were adding this or that feature into Windows. Why would anyone who was going after venture capital to bring a product to market survive with the dominant criminal monopolist announcing competing technologies to be incorporated into the OS? In the 80s this scenario played out endlessly.

This is what Microsoft did to pen computing. Do we have pen computing today? No. Because Microsoft announced pen windows. Pen computing died. Then so went pen windows.

Were some of these companies responsible for their actions? Absolutely. They helped their own demise. The lesson learned from Microsoft is not to demonstrate your product to them for they will steal the ideas, just as they are stealing the ideas of the open source community under the guise of learning from them and teaching back. Microsoft will not do anything for free.

Apple showed Microsoft their version of the Mac prior to the official release. They wanted Microsoft to develop their word processor and spreadsheet for it. Microsoft did that, but they also took all the ideas and made Windows. When confronted Gates simply slapped Jobs in the face telling him to grow up. What was Jobs to do? His product demanded applications and Microsoft was a leading developer, even though they'd purchased their Macintosh word and excel programs from other companies.

With open source it is still subject to the stealing of technological ideas from a closed source vendor but that's part of the benefit. Open Source benefits by the exposure of companies such as Microsoft stealing other's ideas instead of developing them themselves, which they seem nearly incapable of doing.

Essentially, Microsoft has created over the past 2 decades the air of distrust due to outright theft and manipulative practices that ultimately were deemed illegal by the court system.

What is best is that the open source community continue it's uninfluenced progress toward the time when all software is developed in the same manner.

Re:When did Linux stop being "cancer" & "commu (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 6 years ago | (#22604622)

If we're being honest, there's a lot of "stealing" going on all over the place.

You'd be very hard pressed to find much if anything Open Source in the extremely broad category of "things that developers don't want, on average, more than non-developers" that doesn't owe a serious debt of inspiration, if not more, to the Closed Source world. E.g. Open Office, Firefox, GIMP.

You'd equally be very hard pressed to find much if anything in the Closed Source world produced in the last 10+ years in the broad category of "things that developers want more than non-developers" that doesn't owe a serious debt to the Open Source world. A lot more than just developer-y things, honestly, but that's where it's most prevalent/obvious.

The ultimate result is that we can do a lot more cool things with computers now than ten years ago, and everybody wins.

Re:When did Linux stop being "cancer" & "commu (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 6 years ago | (#22606272)

You are absolutely correct, except for your last sentence. My post described what was happening and how the abuse was causing the demise of companies with great ideas that were being brought to market. Their demise didn't help us and give us cooler things. Often the ideas were dead-ended on purpose by Microsoft. Microsoft wanted to kill Pen Computing because they were an OS other than Microsoft that was directly competing. They killed Pen to kill a competing OS. They never came out with pen windows. Today we have similar touch based OSes and the hand held market that relies on touch input but in reality that's a far cry from what Pen Computing was trying to accomplish.

Another example of how your last sentence fails is Sun's Java and the idea of "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". Java was a cross platform modular development system that would technically work in any OS on any browser. Back in the late 80s and early 90s there was talk that this object oriented pluggable apps would completely eliminate the need for an OS. Things could be snapped together and your services could be pick and choose. You wouldn't technically need a computer, just a dumb terminal. This was a direct threat to Microsoft's OS offerings. Microsoft responded accordingly. Even though the legal agreement between Sun and Microsoft dictated that Microsoft could not extend JAVA to be platform specific they still did it. Since Windows was the dominant OS at the time the extensions were gaining all the development attention. The cost was that the java applets were not useable on any platform other than Windows. This was completely contrary to what Sun wanted. It was part of Microsoft's "embrace, extend, extinguish" philosophy that we have all heard of. Sun sued Microsoft and Sun won. Microsoft was ordered by the court to remove the Microsoft specific Java VM from all windows installs. This is just one case where Microsoft's copying didn't benefit everyone by doing it their way. Instead we have what Sun wanted and though some debate the quality of Java others believe it is doing what it was intended. Even tho, Microsoft hasn't suffered as Java hasn't usurped the OS as they believed.

My post did touch on the concept that some ideas are obvious and thus you can't help but influence across platforms (closed and open). A computer needs the ability to type into it. Hence the editor/word processor. It is the epitome of calculation so thus we'd expect to see spreadsheet type applications. It is capable of storing, indexing, and retrieving large amounts of data in the fraction of the time a human could do it, thus we need a database. We'd need menus, dialog boxes, the ability to move things around, sound, video, etc. All of that is obvious. How it is done and how well it is done is another matter, but the ideas are the same.

When we consider IP lawsuits that are rife today we can see that these, in the long run, will (and do) stifle innovation, creativity and progress. A closed source company with IP hurts the industry. An open source company with IP is sort of an oxymoron (though probably not unheard of). In order to slow down and keep ideas from being "borrowed, begged, or stolen" the closed source world pushes for IP while those that are interested in just making product for everyone without (or with little cost) tend to stay away from IP. IP is being used to kill the "open". You can't be open if you have to license someone's IP. The patent trolls are taking advantage of this. Look at how the company that was recently in the news that consists of several ex-Microsoft employees from their IP legal department are buying IP in order to sue. They are after the quick extortion buck in hopes of suing you into compliance so you pay them money for something they didn't even create and potentially is so obvious as to be incredibly offensive to most techs. The multiple desktop features in the OS is one example of the patent trolls trying to kill open source.

Consider also that DOS was a derivative of the QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) developed by a guy in Seattle. Microsoft took that and bought it for $50-70K and made billions off it. It itself was a derivative of CPM, which was developed by Gary Killdal. He derived a lot of it from the UNIX based systems that AT&T created and gave away to educational institutions (and subsequently sued after realizing their mistake--and ultimately lost, thus providing us with Berkley Unix). The commands in the original DOS were similar to Unix commands. The idea of "parameters" on the command line were not unique to DOS. These were incredibly obvious ideas. We don't dispute them. But now even extremely obvious ideas are being patented and then used as leverage to harm competition or kill open source projects. When we move on to the GUI there are even more similarities from OS to OS, but they are extremely obvious. When Apple sued Microsoft one notable thing that came out of it was that there are just some things you can't copyright/patent. Can you imagine car companies suing every other car company over the use of a dashboard? How every car company would have to create a completely different dash? How would that impact us? Just as you can't patent the idea of a chair, or the idea of carpet, or the manufacturing process of baking bread--though it does appear that you can patent the box used to enclose pizza for delivery.

Closed source does not want Open to win. They want to take the ideas and give nothing back. Hence that's the reason the GPL exists. To ensure that closed source companies don't abuse the free work done by those in the open community.

Re:When did Linux stop being "cancer" & "commu (1)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 6 years ago | (#22607136)

What is best is that the open source community continue it's uninfluenced progress toward the time when all software is developed in the same manner.

You almost sounded reasonable until this line. Open-source software is not a fucking obligation. Who the hell are you to dictate what I can and can't do with something I create?

Re:When did Linux stop being "cancer" & "commu (1)

dedazo (737510) | more than 6 years ago | (#22603986)

until they GPL Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office

Besides the arrogance of using the GPL as the measuring stick (as if all the other licenses were irrelevant), if this is your threshold for acceptable action by the part of Microsoft I'd recommend just keeping up the "lalalala i can't hear you" routine. It will be much more rewarding in the long term.

Re:When did Linux stop being "cancer" & "commu (1)

gujo-odori (473191) | more than 6 years ago | (#22605186)

Why is "Microsoft releasing software under the GPL (or $FREE_LICENSE, if you insist)" an unreasonable standard? Red Hat, MySQL, IBM, and Sun (just to name four; there are many others) all did/do that, and it's what put them in good standing with the FOSS community. Why should we hold Microsoft - the most egregious anti-FOSS offender - to a lesser standard than that?

Re:When did Linux stop being "cancer" & "commu (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#22605540)

Because it doesn't require open-sourcing their software to be a friend to open-source. Analogy: I'm not a Christian at all, but I have some very good friends who are Christians. They don't treat my friendship with suspicion because I haven't converted.

Re:When did Linux stop being "cancer" & "commu (1)

gujo-odori (473191) | more than 6 years ago | (#22606568)

That's because you didn't (so far as we know) spend a good portion of your life up until, say, 6 months ago, both doing everything you could to be incompatible with Christians and Christianity, and above and beyond that, threatening to persecute them, sometimes directly persecuting, and at other times getting others to persecute Christians on your behalf (think SCO).

If you had done those things, it is likely that your Christian friends would view you with a great deal of suspicion (as St. Paul was initially viewed after his conversion), and it's even more likely that you would not even *have* any Christian friends, and you'd have to go out and try very hard to get some if you really wanted them. It's even possible that they might not believe you unless you actually became a Christian yourself and thereafter demonstrated a good track record as one. That's not saying you'd have to become an evangelist, but if you'd spent your life persecuting Christians and all of a sudden switched gears and tried to make nice, you'd have to understand if nobody trusted you unless you converted and established a five year track record as a solid Christian.

When Microsoft has opened up its protocols and file formats, has released some significant software under the GPL or a BSD license, and has established a couple years of cooperating with open source, maybe throws in a bunch of patents, then people will start to believe that Microsoft is going to walk the walk. For now, they still look to most people like they're just talking the talk, and they'll have to be understanding if most people don't believe them, trust them, or want much to do with them. Especially since the situation on the ground is that FOSS can defeat Microsoft and the broader world of proprietary software *without* Microsoft's help, and it might even be counter-productive to cooperate with them. Put another way, Microsoft wouldn't be waving these olive branches around if they didn't think it was not only in their own self-interest, but more in their interest than FOSS's interest to try and play nice with FOSS.

I used to work there until not all that long ago, and Microsoft employees are forbidden to even look at GPLed code, on the clock or off. The level of hostility to open-source in general and the GPL in particular is very high. Having been in that environment, I most especially don't believe Microsoft has turned over a new leaf, and so quickly. I'm certain they believe appearing to make nice with FOSS is better for them than it is for FOSS.

If they release IE under the GPL or a BSD license sometime in the next two years, go ahead and call me wrong/paranoid/whatever you want. But I bet you won't get the chance :)

Open Source has Learned From Microsoft (5, Insightful)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 6 years ago | (#22603302)

Open Source has learned how a company can abuse their position, how a company can be a monopoly and make billions and then influence those who are elected into office to protect us. Those billions go a long way to influencing the lawmakers to push aside any attempt to make a better cheaper product.

It is ludicrous to think that a product that can be made cheaper and better should be put asunder because some powerful monopoly can influence the powers that be. There's no socialistic tendencies there. No communistic tendencies. It is pure capitalism that is being thwarted by Microsoft's practices. Microsoft is a bully, an entity that has one goal and that is to rake in all the money while destroying the competition and they are doing that with their monopoly.

Your privacy is being violated hundreds of millions of times a day by Microsoft with WGA/WGN and Vista's equivalent. They are able to get away with it because they don't take competition seriously because they don't have to. Would you go out and pay $2000 for a TV from Best Buy and then allow Best Buy to enter your home to verify that you didn't actually receive stolen property? What if they want to do that every week or every month (inspect your home for stolen goods)? What if they say that they'll do this with a hidden camera? Would you permit it? Say you buy frequently form Walmart. Would you permit Walmart to enter your home to inspect your property to prove you didn't steal it from the store? I think not. You wouldn't let your neighbor enter your home upon accusations that you stole something from him. You wouldn't let the police enter your home even if the neighbor filed a complaint.

What the open source community practices has learned is that Microsoft is the type of entity that uses "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" tactic to kill solid technology and those companies trying to bring them to market. The open source community has learned that Microsoft has threatened every Linux user with 235 alleged patents claiming everyone will have a price to pay to Microsoft, without Microsoft stating specifically what is being violated. This is like an oil company stating that they are going to sue car owners for using gasoline from one of their competitors because their competitor may have allegedly use some of the IP in the gas refining process. Then they threaten the car manufacturers or large companies that use that same gasoline with lawsuits if they don't stop using the competitors gasoline. Then they refuse to say which competitors and they refuse to say which IP has been violated. BTW, that IP was probably stolen by them to begin with.

We've learned from Microsoft that they will steal IP from small entities and when caught will ignore those companies request to have Microsoft pay up. Z4 Technologies is one of those companies. In this case Microsoft was contacted about their use of the IP developed by this firm for the purpose of over the internet product activation. According to the final ruling which went in favor of Z4 Microsoft knew they were in violation of the IP of Z4 and they continued to use it. During the trial they flooded the court and Z4 with paperwork in hopes of covering it up. The day before the trial began Z4 found the evidence. Z4 won the trial and were granted approximately $100 million. In the ruling the Judge noted numerous acts of misconduct on Microsoft's part and though he could have awarded 3 times the amount he only awarded an additional $25 million in special damages (which is no small amount by any measure). The Judge also noted that Microsoft had participated in these acts because they believe that Z4 was to small and to weak to defend their own IP. Upon appeal Microsoft lost with the Judge also noting the numerous acts of misconduct. With the latest appeal of this Microsoft lost that as well with all awards in tact.

But what you must understand from this is that Microsoft stole the IP of Z4 which Microsoft used to keep you from stealing their IP. So, they stole the technology used to keep you from stealing their technology. Can you afford to learn this sort of lesson from Microsoft? Can you afford to trust a company with this sort of ethics and morals? I think not.

What the open source community can learn from Microsoft is to not enter any agreements or arrangements with them and to ensure that they protect their rights even if they are underdogs.

Re:Open Source has Learned From Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22603810)

Once again, I am writing in response to Mr. HermMunster's offhand remarks, and once again, I merely wish to point out that HermMunster's deputies, who are legion, must be exposed and neutralized wherever they lurk. Here's my side of the story: HermMunster is still going around insisting that his ideologies are good for the environment, human rights, and baby seals. Jeez, I thought I had made it perfectly clear to him that the ostensible basis for his speech codes is as phony as the loose and biased standards applied to enforce them. That conclusion is not based on some sort of abusive, unruly philosophy or on HermMunster-style mental masturbation, but on widely known and proven principles of science. These principles explain that HermMunster's pusillanimous attempt to construct a creative response to my previous letter was absolutely pitiful. Really, HermMunster, stringing together a bunch of solecistic insults and seemingly random babble is hardly effective. It simply proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he holds onto power like the eunuch mandarins of the Forbidden City -- sterile obstacles to progress who turn once-flourishing neighborhoods into zones of violence, decay, and moral disregard.

I disapprove of defeatism and I disapprove of HermMunster's ill-bred agendas. HermMunster may mean well but he plans to vandalize our neighborhoods. He has instructed his comrades not to discuss this or even admit to his plan's existence. Obviously, HermMunster knows he has something to hide. If he gets his way, I might very well go crazy. HermMunster wants to sell quack pharmaceutical supplies (and you should be suspicious whenever you hear such tell-tale words and phrases as "breakthrough", "miracle", "secret remedy", "exclusive", and "clinical studies prove that..."). Why he wants that, I don't know, but that's what he wants.

I could accuse HermMunster of using brusque ivory-tower academics to get his way but I wouldn't stoop to that level. Yes, I realize that he interprets his easy meanness as unselfish philanthropy, but for the sake of brevity I've had to express myself in simplified terms. He insists that he has a duty to conceal the facts and lie to the rest of us, under oath if necessary, perjuring himself to help disseminate the True Faith of Bulverism. Sorry, HermMunster, but, with apologies to Gershwin, "it ain't necessarily so." My argument is that he is the devil incarnate. Ridiculous? Not so. I will stop at nothing to unmask his true face and intentions in regard to expansionism. My resolve cannot fully be articulated but it is unyielding. As evidence, consider that HermMunster's functionaries get a thrill out of protesting. They have no idea what causes they're fighting for or against. For them, going down to the local protest, carrying a sign, hanging out with HermMunster, and meeting some other dysfunctional sewer rats is merely a social event. They're not even aware that HermMunster says that he can override nature. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie.

Re:Open Source has Learned From Microsoft (1)

HermMunster (972336) | more than 6 years ago | (#22604494)

Lol, dude. You have a document created that you simply just do a search and replace of the name and then paste that into the reply section of the sites you visit?

Of course, none of it makes sense. It reminds me of when the weak AI programs were released in the early 80s where you would enter a question into a command line DOS program that program would respond with something that seemed to make sense. I remember buddies stating that if you couldn't tell it wasn't a human it was real AI. Anyone with a little spare time could query enough to realize it wasn't a human.

Are you human?

Re:Open Source has Learned From Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22604006)

Whatever!

First I used Hotmail and the Linux dudes told me BSD was evil. Then Microsoft bought Hotmail and BSD was less evil compared to Windows 2000 than Linux. Then MS Windows 2008 server came out and coincidentally my Hotmail borked. Then I was left all alone and there was no one left to speak up for me.

Re:Open Source has Learned From Microsoft (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 6 years ago | (#22604490)

Whatever!

First I used Hotmail and the Linux dudes told me BSD was evil.

Sorry, that was a typo.

BSD is a devil.

Re:Open Source has Learned From Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22606360)

"It is pure capitalism that is being thwarted by Microsoft's practices"

Pure capitalism is a fantasy, lets face this, it doesn't exist. This idea that microsoft is not capitalistic is insane, influencing government is just another market force, just like piracy and the black market is another market force. The whole basis of capitalism is based on individualism, greed and self-interest, just how exactly is microsoft NOT being self-interested? This idea that 'pure capitalism' apart from personal greed and all the failings of human beings is bullshit, idealogy is bullshit in general - all that exists in the real world are transactions and relationships between people based on what they believe to be x, or not x, whatever something is x or y is quite irrelevant since it's socially constructed, there is no ideal capitalism just like there is no ideal model for socialism, communism, etc, in an ever changing world no economic idealogical model really describes the underlying social reality.

People behave in ways that protect their interests and income streams, that's how real markets work in practice. Market idealists like Milton friedman, et, al are a cooky insane bunch divorced from the real world. All human beings no matter what COLOR (capitalism, communism, socialism) they like to dress up their behaviour as or not as, is pure hyperbole

'what Open Source can learn from Microsoft' (1)

milsoRgen (1016505) | more than 6 years ago | (#22603324)

More games.

Build it and they will come...

Re:'what Open Source can learn from Microsoft' (1)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 6 years ago | (#22607154)

You know, this is what annoys me the most, the assumption (made by some gamers) that PC games are really an important reason not to switch from windows, I like games too, but get some facts straight, around PC users gamers are the minority, among PC gamers, casual gamers are the majority, which means that other OSes already got tons of options for the majority of PC gamers. More: Most gamers do not use the PC as a gaming platform, and while we are on it, the current most popular commercial game got a Mac version and has had an amazing record on successful WINE experiences. Fun?

Translation: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22603460)

"We're stealing more open-source code to put into Windows because our programmers don't know shit about OS design."

How Interesting (2, Insightful)

jeevesbond (1066726) | more than 6 years ago | (#22603714)

As in science, this incremental improvement will move all of us forward.

Well this is interesting, whenever Open Source tries to learn from Microsoft Steve 'rabid-monkey-man' Ballmer starts throwing around software/idea patent threats [slashdot.org].

If this is an incremental process that can move us all forward, how about Microsoft offer up their patents to the OSDL Patent Commons [coverpages.org]? Or just allow Free/Open Source software developers to work without threat of being sued? Oh yeah, they'd rather reserve the right to sue anyone [groklaw.net] who dares to even look at their markets.

The joke that is port25.. (4, Insightful)

comm2k (961394) | more than 6 years ago | (#22603908)

There is no point in criticizing or making fun of this article. Just glance over what they have been doing on port25 and you'll realize that it is filled with crap like this. The SpikeSource article is a real gem:

One of the key findings was that customers want better open source and Microsoft interoperability, and moreover, they felt this was the issue that the industry has collectively done the least to address. While there has been a lot of unfortunate history that has gotten in the way of this, ultimately customers don't care as much about grudges as they care about everything simply working. Together, SpikeSource and Microsoft's open source lab are doing something about it.
Excuse me?! Apply Kirk's comment about Klingons.. thats all I can say.

Re:The joke that is port25.. (2, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22604384)

It's a pretty absurd claim, considering guys like Samba and the OO.org teams have basically had to reverse engineer everything to get their software to function with Microsoft's protocols and file formats. In fact, even with Microsoft's "co-operation" there's a real tangible fear with many FOSS developers that there's poison pills all over the place.

open source and MS (1)

jriding (1076733) | more than 6 years ago | (#22604358)

until MS applies for a patent on it.. the USPO approves the patent then no one can make advancements on the ideas and growth... just like Science!!!

One thing... (1)

zkiwi34 (974563) | more than 6 years ago | (#22604914)

If OSS is "influencing" such as the serfs who are working on Server 2008, might that not be a door or window for some lawyer to assert that Microsoft are inserting GPL code into their products? Ah, but wouldn't that law suit be "fun."

uh-huh (2)

RelliK (4466) | more than 6 years ago | (#22605278)

So when is microsoft going to stop bastardizing open standards? For instance, are there any plans to finally release specifications to microsoft's proprietary extensions to Kerberos? [and I don't mean the NDA bullshit microsoft tried to pull]. Or how about the ODF vs. MS OOXML debacle?

This is what microsoft will never "learn" because their business model depends on not learning it.

Seriously, OSS can learn from Microsoft (2, Insightful)

ProfessionalHostage (1110801) | more than 6 years ago | (#22606042)

- Dumbification of Linux: this is being done by Ubuntu & Kubuntu. And I'm not saying this as a negative thing, entry level Linux should be easy enough for just about anyone.

- Run a study on user-usability: OSS can hire or contract an established and well-known 'GUI usability' expert/company and let every top OSS products that directly used by the end user to consult to them.

- Embrace .NET, and create a version that add more functionality, features and 'cool stuff' and make sure anything that written on this version wont compile out-of-the box on VS from Microsoft.

- Ms. Exchange?

- More GUI for everything: Stop forcing us to edit some shady configuration file.

- Out of box Linux distro should be just like Windows': Just some basic programs (notepad, file manager, paint, etc.), but packed with more drivers for lots of stuff.

We don't need amaroK, MPlayer, tvtime, Gimp, and KDevelop out of the box just like we don't need Winamp, VLC, AFM2000, Photoshop and Delphi on Windows. Thanks to package managers, we can just click here and there, and have them available in a couple of minutes. Not having drivers, now that's a show-stopper.

- MSDN: Seriously.. we need MSDN-like website for Linux. Running around the web for some API, and stuff in Linux. While on the M$ side we can get everything from Win32, .NET, SQL Server, and some other Microsofties in one place (and maintained properly). ... just my $0.02 ...

The problem: they do not pay for their lessons (2, Insightful)

dscho (819239) | more than 6 years ago | (#22606832)

It might well be that they learn (slowly, like the slowest of your "friends" in 1st grade), the lessons of open source.

But then, they will not pay. They _claim_ to care about "intellectual property". But only when a _laywer_ that can _sue_ them, they will _respect_ the lessons to be something of value.

So I will be glad when they are destroyed, once for all, and everybody else trying to _exploit_ others' work will have something to fear for.

I mean, Microsoft _invented_ the notion that you should be paid for the _same_ work over and over and over and over again. Only they profited from that. And if you are not a Microsoft shill, you will _have_ to agree that this was unethical.

Now they "learn" from Open Source? Well, even if they do, do they compensate those who taught them something?

I guess not. So this planet will be better off if Microsoft dies a _violent_ death, discouraging all those parasites out there, trying to behave like Microsoft, too.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...