Special interestMicrosoft embraces Open Source? WTF? Extend and extinguish next?
      – BorgClown, 2009-11-18 at 06:39:48   (30 comments)

On 2009-11-18 at 06:43:35, BorgClown wrote...
First it buys and commits to support a cross-platform (including 5 Linux versions) Eclipse plug-in: http://www.teamprise.com/news/2009/11/microsoft_acquires_teamprise_a.html Then it acknowledges a violation of the GPL and open sources the offending tool: http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/11/13/update-on-the-windows-7-download-tool-or-microsoft-to-open-source-the-windows-7-download-tool.aspx And last, it announces that the .Net Micro framework will have the Apache License: http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/11/16/microsoft-to-open-source-the-net-micro-framework.aspx
On 2009-11-18 at 06:44:24, BorgClown wrote...
If Hell was real, it would have lost a few degrees this month.
On 2009-11-18 at 09:57:40, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I think you'll find that Microsoft have used open source for a long time, but to say that they 'embrace' it is FUD. They will always make small open-source gestures where it makes sense to do so. Perhaps if they both released the whole of .NET Framework as open source and released their own Linux versions then I'd be slightly more impressed. Bear in mind that adoption of .NET Micro Framework is likely to be increased by making it more accessible, and they're doing so because they have competition from other providers - not because they're generous and caring.
On 2009-11-18 at 16:04:33, DigitalBoss wrote...
Let's see them release Windows 7 under the GPL. When I can download the source code for Win 7, then I will believe that they have embraced open source.
On 2009-11-18 at 16:17:28, Lee J Haywood wrote...
A lot of people do have access to the Microsoft source anyway, just under non-disclosure agreements. It's a mindset that's difficult to break away from though - if you're used to the public not seeing your code, you write it on the assumption that security by obscurity will work okay.
On 2009-11-18 at 16:44:26, DigitalBoss wrote...
Releasing it under the GPL is much different from "A lot of people do have access to".
On 2009-11-18 at 21:21:39, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: The embrace, extend, extinguish strategy doesn't mean fully embracing, just making it look like that to consumers, so they switch to you.
On 2009-11-18 at 21:24:10, BorgClown wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: Microsoft really likes open source it it has a BSD style license. IIRC, the TCP-IP stack of Win95 was borrowed from BSD.
On 2009-11-18 at 23:35:18, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@BorgClown: Historically most of the holes in MS Windows have been easy enough to find - just pass it bad data until it crashes, then exploit the buffer overflow you've discovered. You don't need the source, but if the source had been public it would have been less unreliable in the first place.
On 2009-11-19 at 04:03:45, BorgClown wrote...
Most of the closed source applications are sorrily written, specially business apps. If you intend to open source a program, you usually code cleaner.
On 2009-11-19 at 04:04:29, BorgClown wrote...
Closed source sometimes becomes an excuse for sloppiness.
On 2009-11-19 at 15:07:52, DigitalBoss wrote...
When I hear the words "Windows Server", I think of the drive thru guy at McDonald's.
On 2009-11-19 at 15:52:33, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@BorgClown: Sloppiness is Microsoft's middle name, although they claim that they're better now. I'm afraid that for me, their reputation has already established itself from previous decades. I know of plenty of projects that rely on closed source for security, and bugs can easily be ignored if the customers don't see them. I've seen plenty of keys passed which rely more on the source code being secret than the keys themselves being secure. One company decided to open-source its code only to later realise that they had a fixed database password for all of their customers, plainly visible in the code. Ooops...
On 2009-11-19 at 21:18:33, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: LOL
On 2009-11-19 at 21:23:19, BorgClown wrote...
What do you think about the IEEE regulating software engineering? I certainly hope that ends the my-nephew-knows-computers hired developers.
On 2009-11-19 at 21:36:41, DigitalBoss wrote...
I think Windows is a good desktop system, but leave the server room to something that means real business. Windows servers suck.
On 2009-11-19 at 21:42:18, DigitalBoss wrote...
I don't know much about the IEEE and software engineering. I am on the admin side. That doesn't mean that I don't do programming, but most of the time it is scripts that transfer or update data from one machine to another. I don't deal with desktops. I have about 50 servers that I look after, and I also run the tape back-up system which services about 130 including some wiinders. We have about 4,000 desktops and another section looks after them. I like the meritocracy aspects of open-source, and every chance we get, we use open-source software running on Linux.
On 2009-11-19 at 21:46:29, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: You, my friend, are putting a lot of windows admins out of work. 50 servers, wow. Are some of them virtualized?
On 2009-11-19 at 22:03:29, DigitalBoss wrote...
I am part of a team that has 50 servers to look after. Yes, our Zimbra email system runs on a cluster of 10 RedHat virtual servers that run on 2 ESX IBM 460s.
On 2009-11-20 at 04:27:16, BorgClown wrote...
Looks interesting on their site. I suppose you are on Zimbra because you needed the vendor support (otherwise, there are other community-supported webapps). Fortunately the education licenses are much cheaper than the business ones.
On 2009-11-20 at 11:27:59, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Speaking of open source, a company which isn't afraid to redesign from scratch for both speed and security... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8369611.stm
On 2009-11-21 at 04:08:18, DigitalBoss wrote...
Google both amazes and scares me. It certainly will be interesting to see how it all unfolds. @Borg: The vendor support was part of it I am sure. It provides a cushion for the political decision makers. I believe the Outlook connector and calendaring capabilities had a lot to do with it also. The way that we have it all setup is pretty complicated, with the vmware, and the network attached storage. Each one of those IBM 460s has 32 cores, 64 GB of RAM, and 12 Ethernet cards.
On 2009-11-21 at 04:16:36, DigitalBoss wrote...
As far as putting Windows admins out of work, we have some Sun Solaris systems that have been running for a year, and that shutdown a year ago had nothing to do with them having problems, it was an infrastructure thing with the power and generator systems. They just run and run and run. We still have a lot of Windows admins though. The 4000 desktops log in to a Windows Active Directory domain. A friend of mine is an Exchange Admin, he says they have to reboot those machines once a week.
On 2009-11-21 at 11:01:24, Lee J Haywood wrote...
It's interesting to see that Google Chrome OS isn't intended for desktops. On the one hand, it's unlikely that many people will adopt it as a result, but on the other hand it may mean that people looking for new computers will go for nettops and the like - much like companies use Citrix dumb terminals because they're so much simpler. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nettop
On 2009-11-21 at 23:55:56, DigitalBoss wrote...
And, by the way, the preview window sucks. It's jumping up and down is very distracting.
On 2009-11-22 at 03:05:07, BorgClown wrote...
It would be cool if it activated on the first tag usage, although it could be made inactive by default and be activated by a user option. It could also be to the right of this text box, so it jumps less.
On 2009-11-22 at 05:11:22, DigitalBoss wrote...
Damn JAVA keystores are a pain in the 455!
On 2009-11-22 at 12:55:29, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Disabling of the preview is already a user setting, as mentioned in the site's change history.
On 2009-11-22 at 17:20:27, DigitalBoss wrote...
Good, I disabled it. I have not reviewed the site's change history. My bad.
On 2009-11-23 at 00:05:42, BorgClown wrote...
Pfft, who reads change history anyway. We live on the edge.