Open Ballot: Should we embrace Microsoft's open source work?

Posted at 3:00pm on Monday October 12th 2009

Want to contribute your views to our podcast? Sure you do, and here's your chance to have a say: do you think we should embrace Microsoft's new-found open source policies, or should we keep them at arm's length? Recently Microsoft has announced the CodePlex Foundation for supporting its own open source code, it has contributed code to the Linux kernel, it has announced that .NET is available under its community promise, and much more. Should we be afraid, or should be happy to take support and code from anywhere as long as it's open?

Our usual Open Ballot rules apply: please state either "yes" or "no" backed up by some sort of cogent reasoning, and give yourself a name that's a bit more original than Anonymous Penguin otherwise we're quite likely - no, very likely - to ignore your intellectual meanderings.

NB: our podcast will be coming out on Thursday this week rather than Wednesday. Can you hold out that long? Can you?

You should follow us on Identi.ca or Twitter

Your comments

Should we embrace Microsoft's open source work

Chris B (not verified) - October 12, 2009 @ 3:28pm

As Microsoft has now admited that Red Hat and Canonical are threats to his business, there has to be a catch. If they gave schools free software and subsidised PC's you could say they are 'just helping out' but with their track record, my personal opinion is there's a hidden adjenda.

I'm with chris B

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - October 12, 2009 @ 3:42pm

no shit - if there's not something up this sleeve I'll choke! Anyway I suppose if it's really GPL'd then there's not a lot they can do..

You Just Can't Make Some People Happy

Minty Penguin - October 12, 2009 @ 3:53pm

Yes

Leave to open source people to complain about proprietary, commercial giants like Microsoft and their "evil business model" and then get all indignant when MS actually does something to help the community of OSS.

I see it as a breakthrough. Commercial software will always exist, but to see the largest proponent of it even make an EFFORT is something that is praiseworthy. Good on them. I hope it's a sign of positive changes from Microsoft in general.

Michael

Why not?

Penguin (Anonymous) (not verified) - October 12, 2009 @ 3:54pm

Many commercial companies contribute to the Linux kernel. In fact, most coders are paid for their work. As long as Microsoft provides good code, it would be stupid to ignore it.

In my humble opinion we

haakin - October 12, 2009 @ 4:04pm

In my humble opinion we shouldn't.

Let's think about the whole thing about Mono. Microsoft will open .Net enough to let Novell create Mono which is open but not good enough for most of the .Net users. The problem is that several imporant parts of .Net will remain closed. For Mixrosoft the situation is a great help in several ways:

a) Let them to avoid be considered as a monopoly. There is an open alternative.
b) Mono is a good way to introduce .Net technology to students, for example. But,
c) Once those students get a job they are going to need the "real" thing with all the bells a whistles, they will go to use the Microsoft closed products. Because Mono will always be one step behind.

"Trust, but Verify"

Remixer96 (not verified) - October 12, 2009 @ 4:46pm

As proof that Ronald Reagan can be successfully be brought into any topic, I'll go with "Trust, but Verify."

Microsoft is a pretty tough cookie, but there's no reason to believe they have malevolent intent in their OSS efforts. Their businesses practices are cold-hearted, but discounting outright any code contributions from one of the biggest R&D spenders in software isn't the smartest idea I've ever heard of.

If anyone still has trust problems, then look through the code. After all, that's part of the benefits when when dealing with OSS.

Also, if anyone thinks MS can "poison the well" of OSS, I think they sell short the drive of the die-hards that code for freedom. If we do get punk'd (which could happen though I highly doubt it), then we'll fix it again quick enough.

I would say yes

A.I. (not verified) - October 12, 2009 @ 4:52pm

Though it depends. Will it bring benefit to the community? Will it open new opportunities for developers? Will it improve the integrity with platforms not supported in Linux?

If yes... Then I think Linux community should not neglect this opportunity, just because it is Microsoft. And developers should support MS's OPEN initiatives.

Independent thinker

gedece (not verified) - October 12, 2009 @ 5:19pm

I have to say no.

I'd really like to trust Microsoft, but they make it hard.

Yes, .net has been released as promissed, but several parts of it remain propietary, so it's either a broken library language or a full library language with legal consequences.

Yes, it did contribute code to the Linux Kernel, but they did it after being told that they HAD to do it to comply with GPL.

Yes, they opened a new site called codeplex, but I think it's kind of useless. We already have Sourceforge, and it works great for me without being controlled or funded by a single company. I've seen no compromise from Microsoft telling they won't close CodePlex down if it doesn't reach the expected success.

Whatever For?

DaveS (not verified) - October 12, 2009 @ 5:21pm

No, we dont need them and we dont need added risk. What, are we losing our confidence in ourselves?

Embrace and extend?

Rhakios - October 12, 2009 @ 5:58pm

Or doesn't that work with FLOSS ;-)

Microsoft is only helping itself.

Forest Kitten (not verified) - October 12, 2009 @ 6:03pm

Microsoft is not in the business of embracing open source, but in the business of competing with it. May God defend me from my friends; I can defend myself against my enemies...

Yes

Muzer_cbatli (not verified) - October 12, 2009 @ 6:34pm

Yes, but only the things they legally agree to be open. For example, releasing code under the GPL is fine, we should use that if necessary, but the C#.NET "promise" is a load of crap.

Of course, as with code from any individual or company, the code should be thoroughly checked by a few individuals not associated with them, especially if it is mission critical (for example kernel patches).

If you think about it, all big companies have ulterior motives for releasing open-source software. Microsoft just do particularly badly at hiding them, do "evil" more often, and have a particularly nasty monopoly, so they (quite rightly) get most of the angry comments.

Yes! No!

Huw - October 12, 2009 @ 6:38pm

Microsoft have proved time and time again that they're simply not trustworthy. However, with regard to code released under the GPL or similar licenses, I couldn't care less where it comes from. As soon as code is released under a sufficiently open license, that's it - the originator becomes almost completely irrelevant. I'd hit it!

No, we can't really trust

ju (not verified) - October 12, 2009 @ 6:40pm

No, we can't really trust Microsoft in any way.

YES! But they can (and

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - October 12, 2009 @ 6:53pm

YES! But they can (and should) do more.

Yes

Fred (not verified) - October 12, 2009 @ 7:06pm

If we, the FOSS community, expect others to appreciate our work in setting open standards, than we must remain open. If we close off even one company, no matter who they are, then we stop being open, and our foundation will crumble as a result.

NO!!!

Feral Penguin (not verified) - October 12, 2009 @ 7:10pm

Come on, seriously?! Is the far and recent past not a good indication what MS does to keep on top? Sure, they have 'contributed to open source'. Parts of each one they keep proprietary, so they can yank the rug out later. They aren't joining the open source community, they are trying to undermine it. FUD didn't work so they move to the next plan.

Anyway, why take the risk? For example, what part of .NET/Mono is that great? Is it so good that no trusted OSS program can get the same results? I didnt think so.

We have good tools and brilliant people that we already trust. Why not use what we have and trust those that have already proven themselves. Time will tell. I don't think MS will become trustworthy in my lifetime and I plan on living a long, long time.

No

chrisw (not verified) - October 12, 2009 @ 7:13pm

personally, for me anyway, the position of ethics come into play. microsoft are activly promoting open source in one hand, and activly opposingit in the other *cough* TomTom *cough*

yes

Ayoub (not verified) - October 12, 2009 @ 7:18pm

I think that open source is an open source wherever it comes from as long as they respect the license they released it under (Gpl, Apache ....).
For those who are afraid of Microsoft driving the open source world, I think is very unlikely to happen because of the nature of the community it self. so let say microsoft open source project get successful and we embraced it and then they try to change their policy or something else bad happens (what every body is afraid of) the community will find or create alternative solutions (forks ...) and it has been always like this. sorry for the long useless speech

No

Andrew Cole (not verified) - October 12, 2009 @ 7:31pm

I see it as them competing against the Unix-like platform to try and get open source coders, hoping a mass migration will kill off development efforts on the OS itself and shut it down.

Almost every singe useful open source program comes from an open source OS community. They are using that old battle stragety of running us out of supplies.

NO !!

MaXo64 (not verified) - October 12, 2009 @ 7:33pm

No..
let's recall History, Microsoft showed a friendly face to Apple back in the 90's then Apple was screwed !!
Microsoft just want to kill every competitor, and Linux is their worst Enemy !!
just, Never trust greedy corporates like Microsoft !!

Big-ness

Muzer_cbatli (not verified) - October 12, 2009 @ 7:33pm

To add to my previous comment, also remember that Microsoft is a huge company - different departments can and do have different views on the same subject. People who can code in general like coding, so if they are bored, they will generally do some small projects, whether this is a little proprietary app for their own use, or an open-source kernel patch to help others, it doesn't really matter. Since they are paid to do coding, and their employers want them to code a little driver to make Linux run better in a Windows VM (or something about that), they do it, and try to make a good job of it. Even though any officially-made code will usually have an ulterior motive, it will still usually be trustworthy, and as long as that ulterior motive isn't evil (what's so evil about running Linux in a Windows VM for god's sake?), there's no cause for problems.

With proper licensing

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - October 12, 2009 @ 8:03pm

If they were to release code under GPL or BSD licenses - ones I consider fully open with no hangups then the 'philosophy' behind each then I would recommend any code that Microsoft would be willing to give.

However, this is the only way I would embrace them personally as they have made a clear stance that they have two major competitors, Apple and Open Source.

Erm, no.

Wryk (not verified) - October 12, 2009 @ 8:36pm

It's Microsoft. They're up to something. They're always up to something. They're Microsoft.

Why not?

AndyH - October 12, 2009 @ 9:27pm

I think code from Microsoft should be accepted - after all, there has to be a rigorous code check done on any patches to the kernel, along with any other open source software.

Let it go through the usual checks and QA process; heck, let people triple check it before it lands up in a release.

The important thing is that we're not seen to be slamming the door in Microsoft's face. That would be the reaction of the zealots, not the open source evangelists. Sure, Microsoft is the original great beast, but surely releasing open source code which can be scrutinised by the community makes them a little less of a beast and more of someone who wants to share their toys?

If by adopting the code Linux can improved, then why not?

Beware!

Ray Woods (not verified) - October 12, 2009 @ 11:16pm

I'd say No as in the past Microsoft has only done things to help Microsoft and there is likely to be a catch.

Beware of Geeks bearing Gifts!

No

Steven (not verified) - October 13, 2009 @ 12:15am

No, you don't trust someone who is offering one hand in truce but holding a knife to your back with the other.

If Microsoft were to stop suing over software patents that shouldn't have existed in the first place and start advertising based on something other than FUD, I'd reconsider.

absolutely not.

jason (not verified) - October 13, 2009 @ 12:15am

until they open their whole codebase and patent portfolio to prove they are truly interested in embracing an open source methodology i say absolutely not.

now that steve "linux is a cancer" ballmer is in charge and he sees every angle of his business threated from the mobile OS flop of WinMo 6.5, the impending flop of Win7 (better than vista is the best thing that can be said about it), etc. he will attack anything he can when he starts to see the MS castle crumble around him.

nu uh

Qjet (not verified) - October 13, 2009 @ 12:40am

Do not trust. Can you blame me?

Besides why should you be accepting and implementing a company who's primary focus is 1. Having a monopoly and 2. Getting a bigger monopoly.

If the company is moving towards these goals (and you know they are) then giving them anything is only helping them reach those goals right? Short term gain, long term pain. Don't give them an inch.

If there are no strings attached.

cabrey (not verified) - October 13, 2009 @ 1:10am

Yes as long as it is under a license that ensures that MS cannot pull the software at any time. Also, patents *can* exist, but unrestricted licenses for patents should be given out of free of charge and should be irreversible.

Linus accepted the driver for Hyper-V, so why can't we as a community accept some other projects from MS?

It would be against OSS to reject the code.

Mike_IronFist (not verified) - October 13, 2009 @ 2:48am

Let's be frank here: Open Source means ANYONE, not just the folks you get along with, but ANYONE can see the source code, contribute source code, and/or do whatever the hell they want regarding source code. ANYONE includes Microsoft, and while they have had some pretty big anti-OSS policies in the past, a contribution is a contribution.

However, I think we should see this as a sign of give. Apple likes to brag that Parallels can run Windows XP, so even if you don't want to Dual Boot, you can still run Windows on a Mac. I think Microsoft is trying to do the same against Linux. Microsoft is afraid of Linux's growth. This year marked the first time they actually listed Canonical and Red Hat as important competition in the desktop market.

This all points to Microsoft desperation.

Microsoft is sneaky, you know...

confuded (not verified) - October 13, 2009 @ 6:31am

Like Mike_IronFist said: "Open Source means ANYONE". Plus, does it harm anyone? Yes, it might generate some additional revenue to Steve Ballmer. But then again, "Open Source means ANYONE"...

I would personally take the code, analyze it 100 times thoroughly (checking for any backdoors, hacks, nitches, exploits etc.) - basically be paranoid on the code they give. After all, as Chris B pointed out, M$ declared that linux is a threat... Exploiting (giving code) this "threat" to it's own benefits is nice, but hey, it's threat! M$ might get sneaky :P.

~confuded

Yes

Stephen Ward (not verified) - October 13, 2009 @ 7:06am

Yes, Microsoft are not going away and we shouldn't tar the whole company with the same brush we do the Sales and Legal departments. There are a lot of talented coders in the proprietary world and the Codeplex foundation seems to want to bridge the gap between the closed and the open. If even one of these proprietary companies sees how much better the FLOSS way is, we are all the better for it.

Why Help MS with PR

DaveS (not verified) - October 13, 2009 @ 7:45am

So far, nobody has mentioned this as a cheap PR exercise by MS. As Open Source gains in popularity the reputation of MS becomes more and more tarnished as an enemy of freedom. Why should we help them address that for the cost of a few lines of code? Are we that easy to buy off?
NO NO NO ................

Approach with caution !!!!

Newky (not verified) - October 13, 2009 @ 7:46am

No,

I think its important to applaud and encourage Microsoft's Open Source initiative but somehow there involvement in open source seems so much more "evil" than that of Google.

Its important that we acknowledge their efforts but really Microsoft and OpenSource raise so many questions its hard to shush the screaming alarm bells sounding

Do we need it?

dismal_denizen (not verified) - October 13, 2009 @ 8:46am

No,

I don't think that this PR stunt is worth the potential attacks from Microsoft. What are they giving to the open source community that really justifies the risk?

Check, Check & Check again

Frustrated (not verified) - October 13, 2009 @ 8:49am

Like others I say yes.

Why refuse what could be of benefit to the Open Community.

Check, Check & Check again should be the guide as a company who are so keen to issue product without proper checking need watching. Today M$ are churning out many security patches.

Accept fully open offerings but adopt the watchword CAUTION! Check, Check & Check again

No!

Lucifer! (not verified) - October 13, 2009 @ 9:00am

No. We don't need Microsoft, we're fine without them. There's no reason to take the risk.

No. Incompatible goals.

Marcos (not verified) - October 13, 2009 @ 9:02am

Absolutely no way. It's simple: Microsoft's goals are not the same as (and forgive me for generalizing so much) the Free and Open Source crowd. M$ wants profit, money, market share, control, etc. They're a BUSINESS. Which means if it's not useful, profitable, or not leading to their goals, they'll just pull the plug on it.

Compare with other projects that start by saying that their work shall always be free to use, distribute and modify.

I don't trust M$, because I don't share their goals. I like freedom, transparency, team/community work, and respect toward users, customers, and people who want to learn how things work.

This looks like a wolf in sheep's clothes, or the Horse of Troy to me.

No. And now onto the real

buzzomatic - October 13, 2009 @ 9:26am

No.

And now onto the real important subject: your podcast.

No, I cannot wait an extra day - you should publish one *every* day so that I can compensate for having no friends.

(Just kidding, keep up the good work. Oh, and how do you format text in comments? HTML? Textile? BBCode!?)

No

Once bitten... (not verified) - October 13, 2009 @ 9:36am

We'll only have a good idea about their real intentions in about 10 years time.

Meanwhile the'll just keep us hanging on with an inferior version of Silverlight etc...

Yes. Code doesn't smell of where it came from.

Marktech (not verified) - October 13, 2009 @ 9:48am

Linus pointed out that open source is to a great extent based on self-interest: code is often written to scratch a personal itch rather than for more altruistic reasons. MS's patch benefits MS, without doubt; if it also benefits open source users, then use it. If it isn't beneficial, don't use it.

Absolutely Not

Jim Allsopp (not verified) - October 13, 2009 @ 9:53am

This is a variant of Embrace and Extend, encouraging us to embrace and then they'll extend and leave us behind. Encouraging Mono means they'll be less native linux apps, and we'll be in a situation like they are on the apple where the Microsoft apps don't function as well as they do on Windows.

If we want cross platform, there's always Java, which is open now.

Is it any good?

Pastychomper - October 13, 2009 @ 11:21am

Yes.

As far as their "open source" efforts are truly open and useful, we should embrace them. The FOSS community is good at fixing things, and Microsoft is good at advertising and distribution, so putting the two together could make the (software) world a much better place.

I stopped used Microsoft software long ago, not because I disapproved of MS or its tactics, but because their software was unreliable and I found better alternatives. Nowadays I do disapprove of MS's business tactics, but if they're willing to try a new approach then I'm willing to listen. If Microsoft can get over its 'we own everything' attitude, open source might be the key to solving both problems.

I'm not suggesting we all jump on the Mono bandwagon just because Microsoft says it's good (as Bill Watterson said, 'if flatulence were all the rage it would still be disgusting'), but if they have do have something to offer and the license is fair, we might as well give it a go.

PS

Pastychomper - October 13, 2009 @ 11:24am

By the way that "yes" was to the main question, not to my "Is it any good?"

Embrace? No. Shake hands? Maybe

Penguin-with-no-name (not verified) - October 13, 2009 @ 11:33am

Got to feel sorry for M$.
Think in 10 years time, where will they be?
The most of the internet's users will be mobile.
The OS will not matter because all the punters see is the browser.
Documents, photos, video and all that 'office' stuff will be in the cloud.

What have they got left, other than a coffee table that you can show your home movies on or a new version of an over heating games console?

Steve Bull(mer) knows this too, so they have to start being nice to the people who build 'clouds' and make 'mobiles', so nice in fact that they will give them their money rather than use the free (as in beer) stuff they use now.

M$ will be around in 10 years, but their days of 'my way or the high way' are over. So use Mono if you like, in the end it won't really matter.

Age?

BubbaT (not verified) - October 13, 2009 @ 12:12pm

Before I give my ( rather long ) response, I thought I would make a brief comment about Mike_IronFist's comment.

Yes everyone including Microsoft has a right to see the code. No one said they didn't.

As for doing whatever you want with the code, no that's not true. Under some licenses you can but under GPL for example, you may not take the code, create some derivative, then sell the application without selling the source code. Not getting to do whatever you want is the point of most licenses.

And getting your code into the project. No one ( aside from the project managers ) has any right to get their code included in the project. It is purely with the discretion of the project managers, whether or not to include your source. They can chose not to include your code because it's bad, because it doesn't follow their indentation style, because it came from Microsoft, because it was written by a woman.

you don't like it that they didn't accept your code, well there is a standard technique for dealing with such an event. Fork the code and create a competing project.

Holy Cow, You Guys Are Clever

Minty Penguin - October 13, 2009 @ 1:39pm

Ooohhh, I see what most of you did there. You abbreviated Microsoft as MS, but then replaced the S with a dollar sign! How unbelievably clever! That certainly isn't a trick we haven't seen a million times before on the internets. You certainly don't come off as ignorant and juvenile - if anything, I'm MORE apt to listen to your eloquently phrased, well thought out posts!

Way to stick it to the man!

Ha! M$... I'm still chuckling.

Michael

Open Source is Open Source

Pykler (not verified) - October 13, 2009 @ 4:58pm

I would accept any open source software, as long as it is really open source (i.e. nothing tricky like it depends on something proprietary for it to run). With open source software, if the company that initially wrote it wants to do something dodgy the community can fork it and run.

I am not sure if I conveyed my opinion, but open source is open source; it doesn't matter who wrote it, it will get audited by the community whom will end up benefiting form it (if any at all).

Yes Microsoft is such a huge

Jimbo Scotland (not verified) - October 13, 2009 @ 6:57pm

Yes

Microsoft is such a huge company that it stands to reason that not everyone that works there is evil. In fact, it seems slowly but surely there is a growing number of people at MS who get open source and want to embrace it. We should encourage their efforts as it might potentially lead to a company wide change of philosophy.

NO

johnvile - October 13, 2009 @ 7:25pm

Why would anyone work for a multinational company for free?

really though, who will benefit from this move the most?
will I? average Joe computer user get a better operating system out of it. will it add anything to my already great OS?

Maybe. I agree in principle

BoBTFish - October 13, 2009 @ 8:48pm

Maybe. I agree in principle that it shouldn't matter where good code comes from as long as it's all legally sound, but I just can't implicitly trust Microsoft. Only if we can be sure their code will be of a genuine benefit to users, rather than a political trick for their own benefit. We have to expect them to play dirty.

Absolutley Not

Counterpoint15205 (not verified) - October 13, 2009 @ 9:17pm

Not just no, but h*ll no! Redmond has long ago proven that they can't be trusted and over something this potentially fatal to linux, I would err on the side of caution. A thousand times NO.

The question is..

scheme (not verified) - October 13, 2009 @ 10:22pm

WW'RMS'D

yes, no, it doesn't matter

rubber feet (not verified) - October 13, 2009 @ 10:47pm

I don't think the question is that intresting since MS hardly will do anything to contribute to the success of linux. Maybe they will oss some of their tech to get more developers into their stuff and they have all the right to do so. They are shifting and need to do so but it will take time, a lot of time but the fact is that their buisseness model is doomed.

I agree that ant code from them should be analyzed well but I can't find them more "evil" than other companies of that size (IBM).
It's funny that some people find MS evil and happily use apples stuff.
It's also intresting to see that Sun is supposed to be so good but are almost stopping progerss of Ooo to the degree that go-oo is now the standard.

NO NO No

Madmilkie (not verified) - October 14, 2009 @ 2:59am

Don't trust them. No! No! No!

It all comes down to licencing. If Microsoft were intending to go truly open source, other programs would have been released under GPL.
As long as one of their products is Licenced... they are all licenced where open sourced or not.

NO means NO

obi (not verified) - October 14, 2009 @ 6:25am

take a look at MS-java, MS-html, ... you knows that the MS guys has the completely opposite dictionary to normals, as we says "open" means "open", MS says "open" means "damn close"

NO means NO and i double that

filip007 (not verified) - October 14, 2009 @ 6:45am

No. We don't need Microsoft, we're fine without them. There's no reason to take the risk.

And just one more thing, we don't need Steve Ballmer the clown .

Bilski.

BubbaT (not verified) - October 14, 2009 @ 8:19am

According to much legal analysis I have read, when the Supreme Court hears Bilski, there will be significant restrictions places on software patents. ( Meaning that legal analysts who have observed the court dealings with patents seem to feel that the court has anti software patent leanings. How the court will actually decide won't be known till they decide. )

Should Bilski, for example, completely ban software patents, then a lot of MS's anti linux strategy is blown out of the water. MS can then chose to slink away with it's tail between it's legs, or it can decide to get really nasty, Netscape style.

So when Bilski comes down, be prepared to reargue this whole topic.

When will we learn

EssDee (not verified) - October 14, 2009 @ 10:20am

You fool me once, damn you.
You fool me twice, damn me.

It will be absolute ignorance of evidence, if we choose to believe them, again.

Hrm...

Craig (not verified) - October 14, 2009 @ 10:22am

No. To me it seems like another marketing ploy to expand it's audience. I would hate to see the Linux community become reliant on Microsoft. I know that's a long way off, but still....

Why mono?

BubbaT (not verified) - October 14, 2009 @ 10:57am

A brief diversion from the debate into a very related subject.
I'll split this post up into two, a look why mono even exists in this part and a separate post with a suggested topic for a future podcast.

In this post I will focus on why mono was created.

1. Getting a language which has proprietary components accepted by a standards committee is hard. Sun tried but just couldn't give up enough control. So you have to believe that either MS was more willing to give up control than Sun, something unlikely at the time, or MS was expecting to get some kind of compensation, what was it?

2. As everyone knows C# is just a MS rippoff of java, but MS did not just copy java and change something here and something there. They basically started over, rewriting java with significant changes which they say ( arguably ) make the language better. So why did De Icaza just *copy* C#. Why not start over and make even better improvements.

By not tying his CLI to MS's CLI, he could have had a head start by taking one of several OSS VMs out there. He had plenty to choose from: Perl,Python, Ruby ( though I'm not sure how solid these are as VMs independent of the language ), Squeak ( Smalltalk ), Gnu Smalltalk, CLisp, SBCL/CMULisp,
one of several thousand Scheme VMs ( after all at some Universities, it is virtual a requirement that your Master's Thesis includes a new Scheme compiler, most of those are GPLed ). Not only would he have a head start on the VM, but there would be fewer patent concerns. After all it's hard to argue it's not prior art if it's in the original VM!

Then take C#, rewrite it adding bits of Smalltalk, Eiffel,Lisp etc. pr4oduce a better language then C#. So why didn't he?

Why mono? Pt II

BubbaT (not verified) - October 14, 2009 @ 12:27pm

An idea for a topic,
Why mono?
More specifically.
What technical reasons lead you to chose mono as your programming language?

Learning C# has been something I've been debating for a while now. one of the biggest minuses has been the shadow of incurring legal problems, but the biggest question I have is: "do I gain anything?".

It takes a big investment to learn a language, so what technical reasons are there for using it,and please... I know the temptation to spout cliches, I fall into it myself. So please stay away from "it's a better language", or "Python uses underscores". ( I hate underscores myself, that's one reason why I use Ruby for my scripting needs. )

Also, why not chose another language, say Eiffel? ( Hey it's in your list of 100 great programs or whatever, sorry it's late ).

Thanks Guys

RE: Microsoft is no ... "legally-binding"ness

BubbaT (not verified) - October 14, 2009 @ 1:59pm

I see you put "legally-binding" in CAPITOL LETTERS. So I guess it must be legally binding. Ehh... maybe not.

You are a lawyer? You consulted a lawyer about this?
You found a web site where a lawyer gives his opinion that it is legally binding? What's the legal theory that makes it binding? The "liar liar pants on fire" theory?

All I found was Peter Galli announcing the CP and then claiming it was legally binding. Microsoft has a site with the promise claiming it is legally binding because they use the word "irrevocably". Right, that really reassures me.

I don't know that it is not legally binding, but until I see some legal opinion that says it is, I prefer to err on the side that definitely keeps me from getting sued by MS ie the
page is not legally binding.

Wow this discussion could last...

Anonymous Koala ( Preggers ) (not verified) - October 14, 2009 @ 2:00pm

as long as my gestation period.

Regardless of Mono, Microsoft is no threat to FOSS

Mike_IronFist (not verified) - October 14, 2009 @ 4:23pm

Here's a brief lesson in law that no one needs to be a lawyer to understand: In most jurisdictions, including American Law (which Microsoft is bound by), if you sign a document claiming you will do something, you have to do it. That's what a contract is - a document LEGALLY BINDING you to do something, or to not do something. And yes, I use capital letters for emphasis. It's not to pretend I know more, it's to EMPHASIZE THINGS.

It still stands that Microsoft is no threat to FOSS.

"As for OSS being a different animal. No not really. How popular has FreeBSD been? How about APL? Once software stops becoming popular it's very hard to regain it's popularity. "

Really? Because if you look at it that way, Microsoft already won. I hope I'm don't sound like I'm mocking you, but I think you're coming across as awfully pessimistic. Linux is not popular at all. We have nowhere to go but up!

"If linux were to suffer a major blow setting it back five years, it would take more than twenty to get back to the point it is now."
The reason why I don't agree with that is because has no basis in fact, only speculation. What constitutes setting Linux "back five years"? If you mean popularity, that wouldn't mean much. Linux has less than 1% of the entire desktop computing landscape. And why would it take twenty years to get back to that point? Once again, something entirely speculated. If Linux ever even comes CLOSE to the pathetic 9% or so that Apple has, it will be an amazing breakthrough.

Dissent, I might add, is something that drives Linux. Some people think everything should be compiled from source for customization (Gentoo), others think everything should be entirely free, including source (gNewSense), and others still think that it should just be easy to use and don't care what it takes to do that (Ubuntu). The power of Open Source is that there doesn't ever have to be unanimous agreement. If Mono becomes a dangerous dependency, any intelligent distro-maker will ditch it, regardless of popularity. The top priority of a distro is to exist - that's an important thing to remember.

Lastly, Linux is not a business - at least not in the grand scheme of things. The GNU/Linux thing is a project, and no amount of corporate scheming by Microsoft can get rid of all Linux and/or FOSS developers. Like I said, Open Source means infinite developers.

However, in the interest of avoiding my possibly poorly-chosen words escalating a flame war, I think I'll withdraw from further discussion. I apologize if you have further rebuttal, but I think I've expressed all the opinions I need to express. I have no further interest in annoying you or others.

Why do we need to

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - October 14, 2009 @ 6:07pm

Surely we should decide whether or not to use open source from a company because of whether or not it's good software. If Microsoft have genuinely released good open source software then why shouldn't we use it.

>If Microsoft have genuinely

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - October 14, 2009 @ 6:42pm

>If Microsoft have genuinely released good open source software then why shouldn't we use it.

If they ever release genuinely good software (which C# isn't), and if they ever make something open source (which they haven't, with any technology related to C#) then this question will become relevant. Until then, _I_ think you can get ELEVEN angels to dance on that pin.

Embrace - no. But -

Morten Juhl-Johansen Zölde-Fejér (mjjzf) (not verified) - October 14, 2009 @ 10:46pm

There will be no embracing their open source work, but it will be accepted as a contribution, because it is of use to us. There are two sides to embracing, and MS will never, not ever, be a part of the community.
But their contributions can be useful. Let's just accept them.

No

Ankit (not verified) - October 15, 2009 @ 12:02am

M$ is not gonna turn philanthropic overnight...no corporate will for that matter and with M$ admitting Linux as a viable threat it will be a leap of faith....:p

RE: Regardless of Mono, ...

BubbaT (not verified) - October 15, 2009 @ 4:53am

Before I begin, I think I owe Mike_IronFist an apology. I assumed that he knew that using capitalized words on the internet was *rude* and that my response was a mild rebuke, using sarcasm as a gentle way of calling him an obnoxious twit. Obviously he did not understand this. So Mike, I am sorry for overestimating your intelligence, I will try not to do it again.

Are you living in the US? If so I suggest you go to the nearest community college, university, law school etc... and take a course on remedial American law. Do this immediately before you accidentally break some law. If you are so dumb ( and I am sorry there is gentler way of putting this, but it is just plain dumb ), as to believe that "if you sign a document claiming you will do something, you have to do it".

So let me begin my list of times when the statement is not true. The first example, a cousin writes to me. In his letter he says he has almost saved up to start his own business, he just needs the last $20,000. So you write him a letter telling him you will loan him the money. You get sick, have huge hospital bills and simply no longer afford to loan him the money. There is no judge that will force you to do "something you claimed you would do".

But I don't really want to rely on an example, they often seem contrived in retrospect. So some times when your statement about "signed documents" is not true. The first that comes to is when the person is under age ( under 18 ). The second is when the person is suffering from some mental impairment. The third is when the person is drunk or high. ( OK. Technically that might fall under mental impairment but I want to distinguish this from physical impairments. ) Another is when a person is under duress.

Even if a judge decides that you were fit to sign the document, there are still conditions where "if you sign a document claiming you will do something, you have to do it" is not true. What if you claimed you never signed, that the signature is a phony, or that you were drunk at the time. A document has to at least be witnessed, and preferably notarized.

But all this discussion about whether "if you sign a document claiming you will do something, you have to do it" is true, is pointless. Why? Because no one has shown us a signed document. Have you seen it? Do you have a picture of it. If so put it up on some image site so we can all see it and rest a little easier. ( Never mind all the legal loopholes in the document ).

Oh and by the way, as to your statement "That's what a contract is ". Let's be clear, whatever the CP is it is *not* a contract. A contract is an agreement between two people. This is some sort of unilateral declaration. Shoot it doesn't even have an "I agree" button. ( OK. That's sarcasm. )

As for your really, really stupid claim that Linux has "nowhere to go but up!". Well I've used linux since the 0.9 kernel ( I think, I would have to check my Walnut Creek CDs which I have somewhere ). I bet you have never modified your XFree86.conf ( is that what it was called? I forget.) file by hand. You have never spent countless hours doing dejanews searches to find the patch to one of the network card drivers that you needed to get it to work. You have never had to use anything like olwm as you window manager. You've probably always had kde,gnome and xfce. Well I've seen where Linux comes from, and I know that there is a long, long way down.

And if ever Linux falls, yes the pieces will all be there, but who will put them back together? Like it or not, Linux is a business. It is a business to Canonical, Google, IBM, Intel, Novell, Redhat and countless more. They have put in a lot of time, and money expecting to make it back. The majority of developers are paid by these companies to develop Linux, and Linux benefits greatly from their contribution.

What do you think will happen to Android if suddenly cell phone makers decide not to use it because they are scared of being sued? Do you think Google will still pay to maintain it? And if they don't, what do you think will happen to Android when new cell phone hardware comes out and the stuff Android runs on will become obsolete?

Do you think Canonical will still develop Ubuntu if companies will not install it because they are scared of being sued? If they don't what will happen when new graphics cards, sound cards, network cards and mobos replace old ones. Will people still maintain and use linux in ten years time if the only way to run linux is on five year old computers?

Finally, I don't think that it is pessimistic at all to consider ways that MS might screw Linux. No more then it is pessimistic to not leave your children alone with a convicted child molester, or to place a camera to record the register of an employee who has been convicted of stealing from their employer. It is a part of the question of trusting Microsoft, especial when senior executives have publicly stated that it is part of their goal to destroy Linux

To the guys.

BubbaT (not verified) - October 15, 2009 @ 5:26am

Good luck with your podcast. It should be an interesting one ( But then when are they not? )

I hope that the debate over what is a minor point, namely whether or not the CP is legally binding, does not distract you from my point about Bilski, or the points I brought up in my first post. I also hope you take up my suggestion to have a podcast discussing technical reasons for and against using Mono ( rather then legal arguments or statements like "it's cool" ).

I think one thing that is become clearer is that age plays a great role in your willingness to trust MS, and that those who are older have seen not only what MS can do, but also seen the beliefs of the people who set the policy at MS.
It occurs to me that many of the people willing to trust MS have not seen it's behavior when it was not under the consent decree.

MS did not like being sued, and it really, really didn't like the order to break it up. Most take it for granted that when MS comes out from the consent decree, it will not be sued by the US government for a long, long time, but you can bet that while they are under that consent decree, MS is going to do it's best to get out from under it. So these people have only seen MS at it's best behavior. When the consent decree runs out, we may see a leaner meaner MS, and we should be prepared for it.

In the last few days, between Mark Shuttleworth's "sexist" speech and this discussion, I have seen how far Linux has come and gotten a brief glimpse of how far it can go, and people are right, there are some fundamental differences between Linux and previous threats to MS's existence. But those differences are not enough to prevent the destruction of Linux if MS decides to kill it and we are not alert to that fact. To paraphrase the US Founding Fathers, " the price of existence is eternal vigilence".

PS, sorry

BubbaT (not verified) - October 15, 2009 @ 5:40am

i forgot to add that it's time for me to get away for a short while, before the feministics come along and get bother with me calling you guys "the guys" instead of "The guys and women". oh and never "the guys and girls".

no

vaettchen (not verified) - October 15, 2009 @ 5:56am

Not embrace - tolerate and see what is in for us. Never ever rely on MS - use them but don't expect anything good. They are out to kill open source!

No.

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - October 15, 2009 @ 12:25pm

One word: No.

Yes.

DaVince - October 15, 2009 @ 3:38pm

I'm voting YES. As mentioned before, it's not like EVERYONE over at MS is evil. It's the PR guys who might be, but any helpful open-source contribution from anyone is appreciated.

Extend and embrace or whatever isn't possible. If MS is going to sue over code "that was stolen from them" when they themselves contributed it, it's easily proven or at least easily removed from the codebase.

"Why would anyone work for a multinational company for free?"
There are plenty of paid open-source developers.

(Heh, my Captcha tells me to "get ripsaws".)

BubbaT is a Troll

Mike_IronFist (not verified) - October 16, 2009 @ 12:12am

Well, thank you for your rational, respectable, non-ad-hominem attacks, your level-headed responses, and your complete respect for the person you are talking to!

Let me just say, it's rare to find someone on the internet who respects an opinion contrary to theirs with as much emphasis on being levelheaded and mature as you!

Thank you for NOT flaming me, for NOT attacking me on a personal level, and most of all, and your complete usage of what I said, in context!

Of course I'm being sarcastic, you were a total you-know-what right now and you should learn a thing or two about manners.

I'm sorry my singular capitalized words seems to count as shouting to you, when in their context they clearly aren't.

As for all of your flametard B.S. about "You never had to live life without XFCE or GNOME or KDE or blahblahblah". I was talking about Linux popularity, and you were talking about Linux technology. You completely mashed my arguments together, quote-mined me, and outright ignored the REAL POINT that I was making.

You may think differently than me, but does that give you the right to assault my person? Me, a person you have never met before? I think not.

Oh wait! I forgot! I "corrected" you about one thing! I called the agreement "Legally binding". And you threw a fit about it! You're such an arrogant little child! You can't take being contradicted by someone else! And so you respond by calling me an obnoxious twit? Referring to my feelings about Linux user ratio as "really really stupid"?

All of my attempts to be levelheaded and rational with you destroyed in one fell swoop of you freaking out because I said something contrary to what you believed. Wow.

What kind of shallow life do you lead to continue feeding on conflict even after the opposing party backs down? Do you NEED to feel better than others by insulting them and bragging about how you used to use buggy, difficult software? If so, you're a pathetic excuse for a human being.

You're also far too old to be flaming the comment section of a Linux podcast site. Good Day.

No.

Anonymous Aardvark (not verified) - October 16, 2009 @ 11:04am

Not while Ballmer is in charge. His views on the Linux "cancer" are well known.

Greatest Trick

MollyWobble (not verified) - October 16, 2009 @ 12:13pm

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist.

That's not to say he does though.

Mix n' Match!

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - October 16, 2009 @ 9:28pm

No! Because in the past (Yesterday onwards...) M/soft offered the hand of friendship only to bite the hand it grasped and try to slap a patent clause or injunction onto an unwary 'Open Source' colleague.

May I draw your attention to a saying I use occasionally:

"Judge not the Serpent by the lustre of his skin, only the beauty shows without, the danger hides within! (M.Shepherd)

Anonymous Penguin.

Dont' through out the baby with the bath water.

labinnsw (not verified) - October 17, 2009 @ 10:11am

Open source is good regardless of who is making the contribution. If I were to endorse the comments against accepting Microsoft's contribution, it would have nothing to do with the fact that the contribution was being made by Microsoft.

I am confident that the powers that be in Linuxdom are competent to assess the contribution, so if they have no problem with it, neither do I.

No!

aikiwolfie (not verified) - October 17, 2009 @ 5:04pm

Many people see this as some kind of break through or Microsoft trying to play nice or even help open source software. But the truth of the matter is Microsoft are just covering their own rear.

The open source efforts Microsoft have made to date are all about staying relevant. In particular Microsoft needs to stop it's Windows platform from becoming irrelevant. If the future is open source for ISVs then Microsoft wants that open source software running on it's closed source Windows platform.

That is the simple truth of the matter. Microsofts open source foundation is a business tool. Nothing more. It's not a kind gesture or a break through or anything else. It's just a business tool to maintain Microsoft Windows lock-in.

Remember if people and businesses abandon Windows for Linux, then they'll also likely abandon Microsofts other big cash cow. Office. Office doesn't run natively on Linux and has mixed results running via compatibility layers like WINE or Lin4Win.

It's no exaggeration to say a serious shift away from Windows, which is happening in some parts of the world, is a serious threat to the Microsoft business model.

BTW, I don't think Microsoft are evil. I certainly don't like their business practices. But that's not why I switched to Linux. I switched because I got sick of BSODs in XP and really didn't want to sacrifice my PC to Vista. And then there was the whole activation issue. I moved basically because I get a much better, easier, hassle free service with Ubuntu. And I'm not treated like a criminal by default.

Past Experience

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - October 18, 2009 @ 10:50pm

From having worked with MS in the past, I get the creepy feeling that they are out for any advantage they can get and use over the competition. They have been heavy handed with customers and want big profits at any expense.

For those who think they are wonderful, I give only a "good luck wish" as it is only a matter of time before they will show their true colors. Open source will never be their true colors.

Garbage

PenguinJack (not verified) - October 19, 2009 @ 2:34am

All this continued bantering about Microsoft and the evil empire is getting quite old, quite fast and is really a major turn off where consideration of Linux is concerned. Why do you nut-cases constantly shoot Linux in the foot and hamper its acceptance with such comments? Don't you think its about time you grow up?

Please edit

labinnsw (not verified) - October 19, 2009 @ 12:04pm

This thread is unrestricted. The last comment though needs to be edited even the the poster is entitled to his opinion.

In Some Cases...

Gareth Ravalde (not verified) - October 19, 2009 @ 9:08pm

This is both a yes and a no.

While it's great that Microsoft is helping Linux out by contributing to it in many ways, it seems more of a scheme rather than a commitment.

When Novell made a partnership with them to allow their root certificates to be used in Linux what appeared in SUSE was true, but some sources claim there's a deal within the partnership to stop Novell from throwing aggressive patents and things against them and windows.

while Red hat had made and signed a legally binding pact with Microsoft to improve and expand sever virtualisation interoperability between windows and Linux, red hat is occasionally fighting back against Microsoft (e.g. red hat developer summit they said not to be dragged in by Microsoft's azure cloud network)

Canonical Still thinks Microsoft is up to tricks with mark shuttleworth saying that (quote) 'We have declined to discuss any agreement with Microsoft under the threat of unspecified patent infringements.'

Either We do A) let Microsoft help, because the freedom we follow and believe in permits this. or B) We exclude Microsoft from using open source and treat them like the vile arch-nemesis we see them as.

Way To Much Paranoia In Penguin Land

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - October 21, 2009 @ 1:10am

That other poster was right. You ARE nut-cases and your continual paranoia with Microsoft proves it. No wonder Linux gets a bum rap with the likes of you folks making such paranoid and asinine comments about Microsoft every chance you get. He's right! You DO need to grow up!

my head says yes

towy71 - October 21, 2009 @ 4:23pm

But my heart says no...
I don't trust Microparp but if Linus and co say yes, who am I to argue

No.

root (not verified) - October 22, 2009 @ 11:47am

No. Microsoft systems... just LOOK at them. They're buggy, they're slow, they're giving loads of errors. I would be unhappy if my Linux'd act like zat.

Uhh... No...

Stephen Furth (not verified) - October 24, 2009 @ 4:08pm

While the very spirit of "open" means just that;
- open to change,
- open to opportunities,
- open to anyone,
- ...
I would have to be a bit skeptical of a company that has traditionally had a reputation for being less-than-open,
- defining (or redefining) things to their liking (read: advantage), and for trying to take control of all they touch.

We will simply have to wait and see what happens, be short-term;
- what they bring to the mix,
- the value it actually brings,
- ...
and long-term;
- what impact their actions have on others (direct or indirect), be it positive or negative,
- what "twists" come up (i.e. MS's definition of "open" may not be ours...)
- ...