Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Nov 2008 06:45 UTC, submitted by pablo_marx
Microsoft has released an initial release of version 2.0 of the Singularity operating system (research development kit, as it likes to call it). Singularity is a microkernel research operating system, where the kernel, drivers, and applications are all written in managed code. Singularity is released under a shared source academic license, and you can do whatever you want with it, except making money (simply put).
Thread beginning with comment 337565
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: First open source kernel from Microsoft!
by segedunum on Tue 18th Nov 2008 18:31
in reply to "RE[4]: First open source kernel from Microsoft!"
Member since:2005-07-06
the MS-RL is not their open source license, the MS-PL is. The MS-PL has no restrictions on it, and is OSI certified as open source (which is the only real, legal way to say something is open source)
So we've established that Singularity is not available under an open source license, and not available under terms that we would all recognise as open source? We're not interested in the MS-PL here because it has no relevance whatsoever.
Academics are best off using code they can do something with and make something out of, and the current crop of MS-PL projects are somewhat less than stellar so I fail to see what relevance either license has.
The whole "black helicopters" reasoning you are giving is wrong too.
When something is just a bit too close to reality, mention 'black helicopters' ;-).
MS-RL are for things specifically getting released for academic purposes.
Do you think Singularity is merely going to be an academic exercise for Microsoft? :-)
Same deal with project ROTOR
I don't believe .Net was an academic exercise either.
...which was intended to explore ideas that may give their own products a competitive advantage in the future.
How did that work out, considering that Rotor was just a very cut down CLR that no one did anything with?
They don't mind sharing their toys, but at the same time don't want other companies to benefit from their beefy R&D budget.
Hmmmmm. What was that about black helicopters again, because I believe that's pretty much the point? Regardless of whether Microsoft use an open source license or not, don't expect to be able to do much with the code. Inevitably, Microsoft will see you as competition, as a lot of software vendors have found out.
The MS-PL is generally used for code you will have great difficulty getting off Microsoft platforms like Windows and .Net, and the academic license is where the latter is possibly feasible or where they see it as a real risk.
Edited 2008-11-18 18:34 UTC
RE[6]: First open source kernel from Microsoft!
by jayson.knight on Tue 18th Nov 2008 19:48
in reply to "RE[5]: First open source kernel from Microsoft!"
Member since:2005-07-06
RE[6]: First open source kernel from Microsoft!
by google_ninja on Tue 18th Nov 2008 20:11
in reply to "RE[5]: First open source kernel from Microsoft!"
Member since:2006-02-05
So we've established that Singularity is not available under an open source license, and not available under terms that we would all recognise as open source? We're not interested in the MS-PL here because it has no relevance whatsoever.
That is exactly what I was saying. Singularity as it stands is only useful in an academic setting, the license makes it inappropriate for use in any practical way.
Academics are best off using code they can do something with and make something out of, and the current crop of MS-PL projects are somewhat less than stellar so I fail to see what relevance either license has.
MS-PL has a hell of alot of use if you are a .NET developer, which many people are.
Do you think Singularity is merely going to be an academic exercise for Microsoft? :-)
Yes. Barely anything ever gets productized directly out of MS Research. Things like singularity are created to test out ideas, those ideas are then rolled into products.
I don't believe .Net was an academic exercise either.
No it wasn't, but ROTOR was. It was an exercise in implementing .net on a non MS platform.
How did that work out, considering that Rotor was just a very cut down CLR that no one did anything with?
I would not be suprised if the work they did with ROTOR helped them push out a mac version of of the CLR for silverlight.
Hmmmmm. What was that about black helicopters again, because I believe that's pretty much the point? Regardless of whether Microsoft use an open source license or not, don't expect to be able to do much with the code. Inevitably, Microsoft will see you as competition, as a lot of software vendors have found out.
The MS-PL is generally used for code you will have great difficulty getting off Microsoft platforms like Windows and .Net, and the academic license is where the latter is possibly feasible or where they see it as a real risk.
The MS-PL is generally used for code you will have great difficulty getting off Microsoft platforms like Windows and .Net, and the academic license is where the latter is possibly feasible or where they see it as a real risk.
The DLR/IronRuby/IronPython are obvious exceptions, but I agree in a general way. MS doesn't care about making their competitors lives easier, but they care alot about their developers. From a .net developer point of view, a library licensed under the MS-PL is just as useful and relevant to me as something licensed under the GPL. The MS-PL projects only exist to make life easier for people like me, and the MS-RL projects are a bone for schools to teach using microsoft technologies. Anyone who says anything different is either uninformed or lying to you.
Member since:
2006-02-05
Actually, both you and Thom are wrong.
the MS-RL is not their open source license, the MS-PL is. The MS-PL has no restrictions on it, and is OSI certified as open source (which is the only real, legal way to say something is open source)
The whole "black helicopters" reasoning you are giving is wrong too. MS-RL are for things specifically getting released for academic purposes. Before the MS-RL, MS would share source code with universities around projects like this, just with all sorts of NDAs.
Same deal with project ROTOR, they put a lot of time and money into an internal research project which was intended to explore ideas that may give their own products a competitive advantage in the future. They don't mind sharing their toys, but at the same time don't want other companies to benefit from their beefy R&D budget.