Microsoft is creating a 501.c non-profit organization (called the CodePlex Foundation) that will support open source projects from the community. That’s a little funny since proof was uncovered that they were providing anti-Linux training in this very same week. The foundation is different from the CodePlex website, launched in 2006. The website is rather a complementing factor to the foundation, or vise versa. A FAQ about the project said, “The Foundation is solving similar challenges; ultimately aiming to bring open source and commercial software developers together in a place where they can collaborate. This is absolutely independent from the project hosting site, but it is essentially trying to support the same mission. It is just solving a different part of the challenge, a part that Codeplex.com isn’t designed to solve… We believe that commercial software companies and the developers that work for them under-participate in open source projects.”
I’m sorry, but despite what many people think, the open source world can not be summed up by Linux. Linux is just one of many many open source projects. There are quite a bit of open source projects that are not related to Linux in any way. I don’t see why it is so hard to grasp the fact that you could support the open source community, but still be in competition with Linux.
I agree. In fact, I was just about to write the same thing.
If Microsoft does not want to help Linux, perhaps they’ll help ReactOS. They most certainly could.
Or open up specifications so that people could help ReactOS and/or Wine.
nobody is claiming that open source=linux. but, it’s fairly clear that microsoft is pulling this stunt as a direct result of linux. it’s ridiculously naive to believe that isn’t a part of it. and, the barfingly shady position of miguel de icaza on the board certainly proves that.
(edited for formatting)
Edited 2009-09-11 01:43 UTC
Please keep personal insults out of OSNews. Thank you.
it’s not a personal insult. it’s an observation of the choice to put miguel de icaza on the board. it’s a flagrant conflict of interests, and is a very shady move. how is this a personal insult?
How is it a shady move to have a fairly well known OSS developer/supporter on the board of an OSS foundation? Where is the conflict of interest? Because he works for an OSS company, Novell?
give me a break. play dumb all you want.
No answer, is what I thought.
ooh, are we going to play a ‘who gets the last word’ contest? i’m not going to feed that particular troll.
you are playing dumb. you know exactly why people would be concerned about this. you can disagree, but don’t pretend like you don’t get it.
you’re not worth my time, troll.
I actually have no idea why anyone would be concerned about this. I don’t stoop to games, but ask questions. Maybe someone else knows, as I honestly do not. The only reason I can think of is his work on interoperability through Mono. If that is it, than say so.
No need for name calling at all. How about contributing to a discussion around here sometime? have a good day.
Do you have a rational reason for finding this “shady” or is it a purely an emotion-driven response? Share your insightful “observations” with the rest of us… please.
while i feel like i may be feeding a troll by replying:
– miguel de icaza purports to act in the interests of the OSS community
– microsoft, widely regarded as duplicitous and averse to fair competition, has stated time and time again how it feels about open source
– miguel de icaza is now serving on the board of an organization founded by microsoft.
it’s not difficult to ponder. and, it’s absolutely deserving of scrutiny. don’t pretend like it isn’t.
It’s simple really. Miguel is driven by technology, not dogma. So he steps wherever he wants and follows ideas that he finds interesting or useful. He won’t choose a side in the FSF vs. proprietary software war, and, like most of us, probably doesn’t even acknowledge that this war actually exists. Throw in the fact that he is the father of GNOME which is the de facto face of the Linux desktop, and this absolutely infuriates people who are firmly entrenched in the Free Software camp.
it’s got nothing to do with dogma, mr. melodrama. it’s got everything to do with the fact that MS has flat-out stated in more ways than one their desire and intention to do away with open source software, and by extension, linux. why help them along?
miguel de icaza doesn’t seem to have the best interests of the FOSS community in mind. the community was built on certain principles. acting like you don’t give a f–k about those principles doesn’t erase or invalidate them.
Edited 2009-09-12 04:56 UTC
Well… I’m certainly not an RMS groupee… but I no longer trust de Icaza. Young Vader is he.
Let’s not forget that one of the goals of the FSF is to eradicate proprietary software and, by extension, the business model that it sits on. The fact that Microsoft, the largest proprietary software vendor, responds in kind is no surprise to me.
And no one is helping anyone along. Microsoft cannot “do away” with open source software or Linux. Linux has a very solid share of the server market and is showing impressive progress in the mobile market. The desktop is all Microsoft territory, but I don’t believe it matters in the long run. My prediction is that we’ll see servers extend down and mobile devices grow up to eventually suffocate the desktop, the kludge that we call the WIMP paradigm, and with that, Microsoft’s stranglehold on that market.
I’m sure that top brass at Microsoft understand this and the result is their apparently schizophrenic behavior with regard to open source that we’ve seen lately. The topic of this very article is one such instance. Right now, Microsoft is the equivalent of the old IBM– the old behemoth of a changing industry. They’ll have to make some clever maneuvers in the coming years to make the same transition IBM made. If not, they will eventually fade to irrelevance.
Me not caring about the crusade against proprietary software is completely orthogonal to my feelings about the principles of the FOSS community. I can appreciate FOSS on the one hand without damning Microsoft on the other. The fact that I am grateful for software that allows me to run, study, redistribute and improve it does not mean that I am required demand those same freedoms from all developers. As for Miguel, it’s obvious that he doesn’t carry the Free Software banner. I just find the idea that the man is involved in some covert plot to undermine the FOSS community absurd. Just because he’s not fighting for you doesn’t mean that he’s fighting against you.
Edited 2009-09-12 09:43 UTC
considering that he was a gnome founder and on the fsf board, I would say that him being there adds a certain air of credibility to the whole thing…
actually, it lends an air of (for lack of a better word) INcredibility to him. but, don’t color me surprised.
I’m not sure who’s worse: The people you criticize — or YOU. Why do you believe that everyone in the open source marketplace needs to be goosestepping in lockstep with Richard Stallman in order to be “righteous”? You’re just selling a different brand of bigotry and, seriously, what have you ever done that rivals what Miguel de Icaza has accomplished professionally? Seriously, what?
did i even mention stallman? no, i didn’t. you know why? because this has nothing to do with him. and when did i say anything had to be ‘righteous’? i didn’t, because it doesn’t have to be. but, what is a problem is the complete disregard for two things:
1) the best interests of the FOSS community that this is riding on the back of
2) the fact that MS has bluntly called FOSS a cancer. why would anybody interested in open software be inclined to assist them in any way? it’s idiotic.
and, i’m not comparing myself to miguel de icaza, so why are you? i’m not so self-loathing that i use others as a metric by which to judge myself.
how am i being bigoted? really? what i’m being is *cautious*, and *contemplative* with regard to a topic that i find interesting. therein lies a huge freaking difference. bigoted? hah! somebody needs to fetch the webster’s.
They will most likely only sponsor projects that do not compete with one of Microsoft’s many commercial products.
Why is this such big news? Microsoft is no stranger to open source, and in fact, they also have a couple of the better open source licenses out there with MS-PL and MS-RL.
Not really. I’m sure we all know a *BSDer or two who are more than happy to provide anti-Linux training with or without prompting. Which is not, of course, to imply that they are representative of the entire *BSD community.
Or Linux’ers providing anti-BSD training.
… which seems to be much more common.
In fact, I believe dismissing the products and communities of other open source projects has always been an integral part of the abusive Linux (sub)culture.
Reader, pick your favourite Internet Linux-meme to demonstrate this.
Now, now, strcpy. Don’t start throwing mud from the *BSD camp, thus providing a concrete example of what I referred to in my original post. Soulbender was right to point out the converse. And in fact, I can think of a couple of people right here on OSNews who regularly serve as examples of it.
If I were going to make a sweeping generalization, which I would never do, I would say that while neither viewpoint is representative of either community, I do happen to notice a little more mudslinging from the *BSD side. But… mostly it seems to be of the understandable “sour grapes” variety. In contrast, the mudslinging from the Linux side tends to be less understandable, and of a somewhat scarier “fanatical” variety, often involving irrational licensing-hatred.
Edited 2009-09-11 16:34 UTC
I know you guys are talking about operating systems, but when it comes to license hatred it does go both ways, especially in the ruby/python communities (where people who release under GPL get A LOT of flack). Granted, its not the moulineuf nonsensical license hatred, but MIT/BSD vs GPL is probably the most polarizing issue in the open source world.
I can’t really speak about the Ruby community due to relative lack of experience. But I spend a lot of time around the Python community. And I’ve not noticed much of any actual flak. What I *have* noticed is a distinct preference for more permissive licenses, and something of an apprehensiveness about copyleft. One thing that I really like about the Python community is its “down to earthness”. Violent verbal conflict is actively frowned upon. And mutual respect is the order of the day. About the only thing that Pythonistas get anal about is “proper” coding practices. Not coding style, mind you, though we do have our PEP 8. But coding practices. “Doing stuff right”, as it were.
There is a bit of apprehension about getting anywhere near copylefted code. But not an irrational apprehension. I remember a discussion on the TurboGears list regarding the potential use by that project of an LGPL library. The initial mood was that it might not be a good idea. Research was done and presented. And in the end there was a fair consensus that LGPL, per se, was not a reason to avoid it. I’m not sure whether it ended up actually getting used or not. But if it was not used, licensing prejudice was not the reason.
Even though I, as a user, tend to prefer copyleft, I can say without reservation that I have great respect for the attitudes and philosophies prevalent in the Python community. And am proud to be a part of it, albeit a not particularly notable part.
Edited 2009-09-12 03:48 UTC
Sure, sorry. But, you know, BSD is dying.
All the activities of a corporation as large as Microsoft may not be completely in-sync.
It’s possible that the aim of the project is to help OSS of all stripes (e.g., the BSD sphere) but they could just as easily be helping the GNU sphere and it would still make sense.
perhaps this is a way for Microsoft to get more programmers writing code for Windows. Seems like an easy way to get some new programmers trained by the community on Windows programming. Might even move over some people who were only dabbling in Linux/BSD whatever before.
-Bounty
(p.s. I wanted to add that I think that approach isn’t necessarily anti-Linux, but is pro-Microsoft)
Edited 2009-09-11 16:11 UTC
considering that was the reason for codeplex.com, i wouldnt be suprised