| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft open to open source | |
|
||
| Time: 13:02 EST/18:02 GMT | News Source: Seattle PI | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Microsoft Corp. says it is looking to turn over more of its programs to open-source software developers, playing a greater role in a process that the Redmond company has criticized strongly at times in the past. Money-makers like the company's Windows operating system and Office productivity suite aren't on the table -- or anywhere near it. But the company has so far released two software-development tools to the open-source community, and it wants to continue the practice, a Microsoft platform manager told an industry group this week. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 317 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:12:10 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 6859 (206.156.242.39) at 6/24/2004 4:03:02 PM |
|
I see this move as jsut a new way to convert the heathens to the True Way.
It might work. |
| #2 By 1643 (204.210.30.241) at 6/24/2004 10:56:05 PM |
|
MS will never release a Linux distro (well, who am I though)...their strength is their platform Win32 and .Net. There is nothing "better" about the linux kernel, so why would they go to a delta platform?
It would be interesting to the OSS community and techies...but no average consumer is going to go yippee. It would cost more for developers to write compelling apps...and to do testing matrix's because every distro has different dependencies. Developers would also need to code themselves or incorporate libraries of code just to play a mp3 file in the app, or render a html "help page". I mean...MS puts a lot of plumbing to make RAD a reality. Windows flourishes because of strong evolutionary, customer driven release cycles (aka called waves today in ms lingo), focus on back compat, and ease of use for the human 1.0. humor |
| #3 By 1643 (204.210.30.241) at 6/25/2004 12:08:45 AM |
|
#16 You know nothing, you are a child in the world of adults. Go away.
"Even in Redmond they know that linux has great potential." Everything has potential... |
| #4 By 135 (208.186.90.168) at 6/25/2004 12:44:07 AM |
|
Open Source is great.
It's Linux that sucks. |
| #5 By 1643 (204.210.30.241) at 6/25/2004 1:41:33 AM |
|
Linux doesn't suck. Lying Linux Zealots suck.
humor |
| #6 By 1643 (204.210.30.241) at 6/25/2004 4:25:39 AM |
|
"However it does bother me that MS spreads disinformation about Linux. In a perfect world everyone would concentrate on building their platform and people would make an unbiased decision, but here we have people trying to influence each other and arguably flat out lie about things.
I have seen very few Microsoft lies, but views from there perspective (studies, reports, WP). A lot of the stuff floating in the OSS community is bold out LIES made by fanatics willing to stretch the truth and take items out of context to suite there own biases. "Here we have a company that faked video evidence in a federal trial" Faked what? "has participated in unlawful business practices" Ya, like 6 or 7 years ago...IBM did to in the past, but no OSS people care now that they're on their side. And in Microsoft's defense...if boxes went out without an OS , there would have been a lot more piracy. That was their main driving reason behind it...they we're aggressive and young. "and goes ahead and disseminates slander (Linux is a cancer!)" I seriously believe Steve Balmer believes that, as well as quite a few others. GPL is cancer for innovation in technology...IMHO. "and fakes studies, it's just despicable." Every study has been done independent, albeit, funded by Microsoft. They documented the methodologies, and gave their results...just because you disagree that patch X wasn't installed or a 1 month old kernel...doesn't mean it's a lie. "How can you condone that? " I guess I don't feel the same way you do and see a human perspective. People make mistakes...it's the big picture. "What incentive do you have to contribute to CPL" You don't, you only have access for to the source for two reasons: A) MS goes out of business B) Security review Microsoft controls the source for a reason, and that's for a stable customer driven releases of the platform that developers can write applications. Microsoft manages this as a leader in the industry for both the customers and developers benefit. If every company had their own version of XP with their custom dependencies, it would be a nightmare to maintain desktops and applications (every tech would need to be custom trained, apps might need to be modified and debugged to run). When you use Microsoft solutions, you are basically outsourcing your SW development to them, maintenance to them, and support to them. And to be honest with you, if you look at the breadth of technologies they offer and the tight integration with all their products...it really is a lot cheaper than customizing OSS platform and apps in-house. You get more done faster and cheaper...and that's the name of the game. Automated Desktop deployment with automatic backup/restoration of user data is here today. Automated Server deployment is here. Automated configuration for servers desktops are here (Group Policy) Automated Application Deployment is here (GP, SMS, and soon zero http install whidbey apps cached on the local client with auto updates and secure signing 9configurabe via GP)) It's just easier and more productive on this side. And it's all about the apps and what you can do with the computer, not the OS. humor This post was edited by humor on Friday, June 25, 2004 at 04:43. |
| #7 By 1643 (204.210.30.241) at 6/25/2004 10:22:32 PM |
|
<Quote>"What MS does is more contrived manipulation."</Quote>
What are you talking about? It's a PR department!!! Redhat has one, SCO, Sun, Mac...etc. And when Mac puts out the "fastest PC out there" ads (which is so skewed)...you don't attack it with a vengeance like you do above...why is that? You have so much emotion, possibly because you have been brainwashed by slashdot's crowd of angry old geeks (or hippies). <Quote>"They have a whole PR department behind this. It's organized lying. " Where is this pattern of lies? Tell me a few lies that Microsoft has put out there...a pattern of organized lying on Microsoft.com, msn.com, presspass, msdn...please give me these LIES you speak? </Quote> And don't give me that "MS Fact campaign is FUD" bullcrap the passionate OSS crowd immediately spits out. I'm preemptively saying that's bullcrap...or you think there lying about: Thee results...the actual raw data of the tests. The methodology they used. Maybe they stayed up and recompiled the linux kernel so it was less efficient before the test....or used an earlier version of the linux kernel on purpose...even the the newer one was on probably less than 1% percent of the linux boxes out there when the report was started, and was the Linux kernel revision that was current when windows 2003 shipped. This is absurd, just because it doesn't support your claims...doesn't mean it's not true. So tell me these organized lies you speak of... |
| #8 By 1643 (204.210.30.241) at 6/25/2004 11:20:37 PM |
|
"Microsoft submitted as evidence a videotape showing that removing Internet Explorer from Microsoft Windows causes slowdowns and malfunctions in Windows. "
Maybe it did slowdown (because of dependencies that other apps were using on the html renderer and had timeouts). Maybe some apps used the rendering technology in 9X...maybe apps and components in windows NT 5.0 (2000), that they were already working on for several years, used these functions int here apps...maybe, they just weren't making it up. So maybe some non-techie lawyer screwed up in the production of the tape...Your just seeing the absolute possibility and going on it like it was contrived notion. "Making mistakes and planning them are two different things. MS thinks "It's not lying/cheating if we don't get caught"" What are they lying about? When have they planned mistakes...othe than the mistake of giving all there IP away for free under the GPL? I want to see patterns here...not just every "one out of a thousand claims" that may have resulted from human error. "If you think so, go with MS. MS will just make it difficult for you to ever choose anything else. Going MS is a liability because they make it difficult/impossible to migrate. MS becomes an expense. Easier & more productive is your opinion, but the disadvantages are fact." It's difficult to go with the alternatives because there not as good, not as compelling, and more expensive to deploy/manage (and all that other stuff I'm not going to repeat again)...not because I'm locked in. You said it yourself switching is easy, but why go to a product that is not as good. What exactly can't you migrate from in an MS enviroment? Give me some examples...with the exception of the Win32 api...obviously. ... |
| #9 By 1643 (204.210.30.241) at 6/25/2004 11:43:12 PM |
|
...
"This is a way of MS to get other people to check their programs for them if you think about it [view source code]" Only if you want to...i sure as hell haven't. "there's absolutely nothing in it for the customer and MS should really be doing this stuff themselves. [Viewing source code]" Nope, they pay Microsoft to do it a one time fee for 10 years of support ($80 OEM price)...instead of paying Linux experts to manage your more complicated Linux IT enviromenr, or hope someone else does it, or doing it yourself if time is of no importance to you. "If MS goes out of business, you still don't get important file formats information because they're not opening that anyway" If MS went out of business, the source would get released by the courts...i have know doubt (FUDDY). Obviously other office suites can open MS files as MSucks point s out...there are none that I can think of that are "locked". "MS controls the source is so they can make money from the product even when others do the work. [Modify code into MS's source code?] " Are you insane...they do the work themselves. Of course security vulnerabilities are the exception since the discovery may come outside of MS, but MS fixes it and releases it as soon as it has gone through testing. People don't do work for MS, they beta test products because they want to...not because MS forces them to. How many version of DIVX betas were there before it was released? Everyone betas sw today...us techies like new things sooner. "No because if you break compatibility you lose the ability to run applications. If people don't want to support your version then you're S.O.L. or you can do it yourself. Nobody's forcing anyone. However if there is a reason to maintain these (i.e. $$$) then people will be willing to pay for it and others will be willing to implement it. The best version will be the one most supported/used. Ones that aren't supported/used will die out. That's a software eco system, not what MS is passing off as one. " Why exactly would I want to do and deal with all this (I want to build better cars for example...not plan api features)...and work with an inferior product (IMHO)...when I can pay MS $80 bucks a copy OEM price to do it. Provide support for 10 years, and maintain my investment. If I had to hire just one more tech at $80,000 a year (salary/expense) to review oss code, fix security vulnerabilities, and plan dependency and compat issues...i would have to deploy 1,000 XP free oss boxes to make back my money. Plus I have the requirements from many business units, with specialized apps in company that size (financial, engineering, mechanical, artistic, facilities, etc.) and plan there app dependencies and app requirements, possibly build specialized apps in house, integrate with my other enterprise systems, deploy the latest fixes...and oh boy, now I need more technicians. OSS, good for linux developers, bad for customers...IMHO. "MS will just make it difficult for you to ever choose anything else. " I could migrate from any MS product today that I can think of...this continuous FUD. Even future .net apps will run on other platforms, ever hear of mono? .NET has most major parts submitted to a standards body to elminate this FUD. "MS becomes an expense" But it's cheaper in the long run, and provides high ROI according toquite a few studies. Technology is an investment. I'm sure by now, you know my feeling that MS has leading edge technologies that are well integrated and provide a higher ROI. humor This post was edited by humor on Saturday, June 26, 2004 at 02:12. |
| #10 By 1643 (204.210.30.241) at 6/25/2004 11:53:23 PM |
|
#27 with no real experience outside of the slash dot forums for a thousand Alex.
"The "get the facts" campaign is plain lies." As per usual you neglect reason and spread lies because it's not your view. Run the tests according to the documented methodologies and you tell me if they're lying. "Dunno, there's a great conflict of interest if a software study is funded by Microsoft" Doesn't mean it's wrong there kid. "they wouldn't provide funding for complete objectivity" Maybe they don't need to lie or have bias towards there product...maybe your...wrong. Shock me, Shock me, Shock me with that deviant behavior. "interesting to note that you counter the unfair practices by Microsoft by saying that IBM does the same. So "so did you too" argument's sorta weak. And you do concede that Microsoft plays unfair business practices with the competition. " Negative, my comment was: Ya, like 6 or 7 years ago...IBM did to in the past, but no OSS people care now that they're on their side. Most folks would say IBM is a responsible company today and has learned from there mistakes in the past at the early days of technology. But MS which hasn't done anything remote to "unfair business practices with the competition"...which only real argument is forcing OEM's to put an OS on every box a decade ago...and the reason they did that was piracy. I don't see a history of unfair business practices...and keep in mind...it's their job to kick the competitions ass. humor This post was edited by humor on Saturday, June 26, 2004 at 01:59. |
| #11 By 1643 (204.210.30.241) at 6/26/2004 12:30:06 AM |
|
"So PR = lies? OK, let's ignore MS's PR from now on"
Right, god damn them for trying to put out a message that there product is better than the completion. Those bastards....lets beat the hell out of them. "They will do anything it takes to get you to buy their software, if lying is a part of that so be it. " No they won't. I worked with MS sales reps...and they believe in their products and are honest people. But because there views don't agree with yours, they are lies? Of course, it the sales persons job in any company to close deals. "Denied tying in IE to Windows & attempting to maintain their monopoly" I'll say it again...from #28: Maybe it did slowdown (because of dependencies that other apps were using on the html renderer and had timeouts). Maybe some apps used the rendering technology in 9X...also apps and components for windows NT 5.0 (2000)...that they were already working on for several years, used these functions in their windows/apps. Maybe, they just weren't making it up. "There's the video evidence thing " Look at #28 "Called others' IP their own" Oh common, who doesn't sue MS. Do you think activex controls were stolen from the university, or maybe they thought of it independently...it happens all the time. "A blatant lie: "There are no significant bugs in our released software that any significant number of users want fixed"" I don't think you understand SW development in the real world...read this link form the PM for onenote: http://weblogs.asp.net/chris_pratley/archive/2004/02/05/67871.aspx "Innovations MS claims are theirs:" OMG, really, comon...you read this crap. Remember, MS integrated all this technology seamlessly...joke at the details, but because all of these little things, the windows experience is better. "MS lied to prevent users from upgrading to competitor's software" This is relating to 1993...1993!!! Caldera? Was WFW 3.11 out yet? You gave me like 20 "lies" over the course of the last week that YOU think are lies. This is your conspiracy, this is your pattern of deceit in the las decade. With a more than say...twenty thousand or more...articles, web pages, studies, press releases, and white papers in the last decade ms has written...you can't give me a pattern, a conspiracy, more than 100? BTW, most your theories them are very subjective, but myth-ed to the most pessimistic view. I thought you could do better than that. But hell, I don't see a "pattern" as you sensationalize it. "They are even hostile toward customers: " Ya, the ones that were stealing from them. It does happen you know... "Point is, the evidence they showed was tampered with and rejected. Perhaps you are the one that is brainwashed? You're making excuses on behalf of MS. You're not even MS." Bullcrap...tampered...all methodologies and data are documented in the report...this is pure lying FUD. Prove your tampered theory...cuz that is all it is. Run the tests as documented and tell me they are wrong? "And you have absolutely nothing to back this up with. Great. " Sure I do, and more than 50 million customers in the US agree with me. Your claim that you can't migrate is FUD...your "lock in" is FUD...and you contradict yourself that switching to linux is easy and painless. Have you answered my question on what technologies are you "locked in" with no export or integration from other technologies? No. humor This post was edited by humor on Saturday, June 26, 2004 at 02:24. |
| #12 By 1643 (204.210.30.241) at 6/26/2004 12:16:45 PM |
|
#33 No, I just don't sensationalize occasional mistakes into a "pattern of deceit" and ignore the positives. MS isn't evil...their a bunch of people who make mistakes, and I would argue they make them far fewer than most in perspective of the massive breadth of your technology.
You think you know better than the market. There's no "lock-in"...so obviously you think the majority of IT personal are morons. humor |
| #13 By 1643 (204.210.30.241) at 6/26/2004 4:49:20 PM |
|
Show me some "lock-in", give me some examples...you can't (or there are isolated incidents).
I can express my views...your the one whose "facts" are nothing more than mythed FUD. At least I can back it up with reputable sources and experience. You say I'm covering there ass...i'm giving you context and perspective of your "claims". humor |
| #14 By 274624 (94.23.244.108) at 12/12/2009 3:32:14 AM |
|
hello every one
I am delighted to be here at this identify. It's a kindly region to be. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 317 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:12:10 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
