If the software developed by a Filipino company that enables Windows programs to run on Linux is indeed meant to propagate “open source computing,” then the firm should give it away for free, the head of Microsoft Philippines told INQ7.net. “If they can’t do that, it is just like any other commercial software business,” Antonio Javier, managing director of Microsoft Philippines said, referring to the David middleware program developed by SpecOps Labs.
Microsoft to SpecOps: “Give David for free”
Submitted by Jerome Gotangco 2004-04-27 Microsoft 46 Comments
With the reservation that i have not actually read the article, I think M$ has a point here. Any solution on linux that isn’t at least open source and preferably free ($$$) undermines everything linux stands for. Having a major subsystem in linux that is closed source is not going to help the movement.
I can already see many people saying that MS is trying to undercut a commercial software company, I however feel different. Once MS opened much of it’s source to be analyzed by experts, it also opened a door for companies to review the backend of windows. The speed at which Wine could be developed with all of the MS source is exponential. MS could be under the suspicion that the Windows source was used to create a tool like “David” and therefore be asking for the source to be opened. I’m also sure that if any major linux distro was to adopt “David” they would ask of nothing less but to see the source. “David” is a risky endeavor and not in the fact of Wine being a risky endevour. We all know the SCO situation and the snails pace that source is beign released, just think about what would happen if an entire software package (David) was completely based on Windows source.
MS is all about SPIN!
They say iTunes is Apple Propriatary even though it runs on WINDOWS!
I think it is great that you can BUY something for a free OS.
Everything does not HAVE to be free. In fact, having everything free is what is holding LINUX back.
I think Microsoft is running scared. What a pathetic taunting on their pair. It’s kind of like saying go on then, I dare you, I bet you won’t. … all the while hoping that they will do it in order to get things their way. How childish. Open source software isn’t just about not having a price tag attached and is not `just the same as commercial software` just because there is a price tag attached. Microsoft just doesn’t want to lose DOLLARS. What a crock of crap.
I hope the people making this David system do whatever THEY want to with it and completely ignore Microsoft’s opinionated response about it. It’s none of their business. It seems to be new Microsoft practice these days to spread a whole load of FUD and crud and to get people into places where they don’t belong to try and penetrate the market further with their posessive tendencies. Back off Microsoft, you twerps!
They say iTunes is Apple Propriatary even though it runs on WINDOWS!
Just as WMP is Microsoft propriatary, even thou. it runs on Mac and Solaris.
The diffrences is WMA is 100% MS, while ACC is “free”, but allows for none-free DRM to protect it. Which iTunes uses.
If you think Linux as an operation system made only for open software, Linux will die soon, because the real world is not only made by free/open software.
The real freedom of linux is choice, including the possibility to mix open and closed source, free or not.
If a software is closed, this “freedom” gives you the oportunity to develop an equivalent “open” software better than it. If you can win, good, if not, is good to have the option to buy one.
About Microsoft, if they think that only free software means to linux, and they think David must be free, why Windows isn’t free? I think is not necessary to give Windows as a free/open software, just open its stantards and API to we can see if MS will continue to have 99.999% of the market.
I’ll aprecciate to see your opinion back.
“Microsoft just doesn’t want to lose DOLLARS.”
So tell me this, what buisness in their right mind wants to lose DOLLARS? Last I checked, the point of a business was to make money by selling a product. Oh wait… Thats right, this is Microsoft we are talking about. Cant forget the double standards against them. Its ok for IBM or Apple to make money, but heaven forbid a successful company like Microsoft make money! About this so called “FUD”… So you expect Microsoft to just say that Linux is better? Oh yea, thats a way to win over customers. Its like Chevy running an ad for a new truck and saying that Ford is better built and has more power. Face it, companies do this all the time. Microsoft is just another one of them. I do hope that Longhorn manages to cool all this hype about Linux. Bring it on Microsoft!
M$ here has just attempted to create a catch 22 for David. They have placed two options in front of them, and labelled them both as wrong. They state that if they are supporting Linux, and opensource “free” operating system, then they should be free as well. If not they are against the community and thus opensource community should shun them (which looks like is happening from some posts here). On the other hand if they do as M$ states, they will be very low on resources and the project will most likely fall behind any windows developments. M$ is just trying to create trouble, and the only way to stop it is from people in the Opensource community supporting David in some form.
“”Microsoft just doesn’t want to lose DOLLARS.”
So tell me this, what buisness in their right mind wants to lose DOLLARS? ”
yes. so why do they shut their stupid mouth and let other people decide what to do with THEIR software.
who are they to decide whether david should be free or not
Microsoft purposely binds their products with Windows in order to force the consumer to stay with Windows. Take the binding force of Windows away and Microsoft instantly becomes crippled. The consumer becomes free to choose and roam where they will. Industry standards will then become the norm and non standard proprietary operating systems like Windows will become old news.
Wine, and products such as “David” claims to be, are likely to break Microsofts grip on the computer and software industry.
I hope its as good as it claims to be.
It seems that some of the posters are under the impression that Microsoft was taunting SpecOp to release the source code for David, which is not the case. They’re taunting SpecOp to release the compiled binary at no charge.
I could see Microsoft wanting to examine the David source to find ways to break compatibility in further versions of Windows and make it harder for David to run, but if they’re gonna tell SpecOp to release the program for no charge then they might as well tell every other Linux vendor the exact same thing. Tell RedHat not to charge for any of theri OS’s, tell VMWare not to charge, etc..
they just seem scared I guess
If any of you actually read the article and introduction, you would find it actually says: If SpecOps wants to benifit OSS computing it should OpenSource it. It doesn’t say they should give it away (though the title of the piece implies this, maybe eugenia decided on a bit awkward title for it). There are several Open Source licenses that still allow you to make money off of it. It also says: If they don’t it’s just like any commercial business; which it is. Nowhere is it said that that’s necessarily a Bad-Thing(tm). Considering this, I wholeheartedly agree. It isn’t benefiting OSS computing in this way, or at least not in the way it could. Having code available would allow us to develop libs that would make porting from windows easier for example (a la winelib); en eventually even moving away from windows. If a piece of (business) software doesn’t run it allows the business wanting to run it to modify the software to fix the problem (either in their software or in david). Without the source finding out what the problem is can be much more difficult. This again isn’t helping OSS because many companies require specific custom solutions, and they aren’t going to wait for SpecOps to fix their product, but instead just use something that works.
So in all, people: read the article … and take it into context. And ofcourse MicroSoft has it’s hidden agenda, but as a money making corporation it should.
I think its terribly naive if people think that the only “good” software is something that is obtained for no charge. Get real people, it’s a commercial world. Apart from the fact that many computer users don’t equate free with quality, what’s wrong with running commercial applications on our open source, free operating system? People and companies have to earn income.
If Linux is to emerge and prosper on the desktop it will be because the commercial software companies support it by porting their products. We should be encouraging Adobe, Macromedia and others, even Microsoft, to come out with Linux compatible versions. At least then we might get some complete, full-featured, fully-tested, non-beta products to use. Then we should support them by buying the products!
I agree with Mr. Shucky Ducky. This taunting needs to stop. If Microsoft wants to find ways to break the compatibility in later versions – thats fine. But to offer a program (SpecOp) at no charge, they may just make every other Linux vender do the same.
EVERYONE: Tell RedHat not to charge for any of theri OS’s, tell VMWare not to charge, etc..
—-Great Post Shucky
Wait… what does zero cost have to do with open source? Sure lots of OSS is freeware, but so is lots of proprietary software.
Isn’t the fact that they’re saying something/anything about that software interesting in itself?
Dan: MS is all about SPIN!
They say iTunes is Apple Propriatary even though it runs on WINDOWS!
WMP runs on Mac OS, does it mean it is the most open media platform on earth? Cross-platform doesn’t mean that it is non-proprietary. iTunes uses a not-so-open format as its default format (AAC), and uses single-vendor FairPlay as its DRM for protected music…
mlk: The diffrences is WMA is 100% MS, while ACC is “free”, but allows for none-free DRM to protect it.
WMA is 100% Microsoft – yeah. AAC however is developed by a consortium that charge more than twice than MS for patent royalties.
This would make absolute sense if David turns out to be what I think it is:
SpecOpS would have to buy more Windows servers and licenses from Microsoft to power their business.
Wow. Take the binding force of windows away….what’s left. This is what all the court cases should have forced through. Wow, now that is the right way to be thinking.
Add to that, consumers, Stop buying pre-installed PC’s that are not offered with the option of another O/S, would be another way to force change. Linux has been Desktop ready for ages. Pre-install Linux, and you have a far superior and stable system on cheaper hardware.
These things are so obviously clear, that one wonders at the creditability of the legal profession in these cases.
When will people get it into their thick heads that free software is not about money. There is nothing in the GPL that stops you from charging for software. If I sell you my GPL software, I’m not breaching the GPL. I could sell you any GPL software I like, and if you pay for it, then good on me – as long as I make the source code available to you, I am in full compliance with the GPL.
Codeweavers sells wine software. They sell you a binary, and some configuration software. The source for the GPL component is available on their website for download for free if you want it. I prefer to buy their binary product, rather than compiling from source, because I want to get the value that they add to the source, and support. That is a commercial business model. That means Codeweavers is a commercial software company like all the other commercial software companies. I bet you they’re shitting themselves now that I’ve exposed them in public. Better not tell Microsoft, cos sure as eggs they’ll call them a commercial software company too, and then where will we all be – confused and questioning our reason for living? I don’t think so.
If this is the best that MS can come up with, they must be seriously worried. “ooh. I’ve called you a commercial software company, now what are you gonna do eh? – Oh, you’re going to sell some software, ah ok. Hmmm now what? Innovate, compete? Don’t be stupid – lets call everyone more names.”
Is this David thing for real?
Free software doesn’t mean it cannot have a commercial purpose. Free is as in free speech, not as in free beer. Microsoft just uses this misconception about the word free to its own advantage.
Everyone harps on about the quality of the lawyers who work for microsoft.
If they are so good, how come they failed to understand the wording in the GPL (which the majority, but not all) of OSS is released under ?
Did they actually read the document ?
This highlights one reason why OSS will eventually kill Microsoft, they simply do not understand the threat.
OSS can be $0, however, Joe Bloggs Software Inc can develop a piece of OSS, and charge big bucks for it.
Open Office is free, it is a quality piece of gear, now, imagine in the not too distant future, that if OpenOfficeOrg decided that $150 is a good price to pay for thier software. There will be an initial outcry from people who have been used to it for free, but there could literally be millions of other customers who have tried the latest MSOffice and just did not agree with DRM.
Microsoft has a major part of its revenue lost, so it realeases a new operating system, (or a “special edition”), to recoup some cash. Ex-loyal Windows users, who are now seeing the quality of good OSS decide to give linux a try.. hmm, they decide they like the stability and the ease of use of this system over windows.
Where will microsoft be left then ?
I am not psychic, I do not read tarot, my crystal ball smashed when it fell off the table, but even I can see times are going to be tough for Microsoft, until they learn to understand the beast, join it, or be defeated by it
this are all still speculation.
I never saw david, and I’m not sure, that things really esist. People are working on wine since 10 years … David cannot be done in 6 weeks. So, – nothing to see here
Once again, MS has completely missed the point abt the Linux philosophy. Perhaps it was a deliberate attempt. On the Linux world, it’s abt choices. Choices for the developers and choices for the users.
Codeweavers’s WINE is NOT free. WINE is free
Win4Lin is not free. Bosch is free
Postgres is free. Oracle is not free
Need I go on ? Ultimately it’s up to the users to see the value for commercial apps on Linux. I DID and that’s why I paid for Crossover’s WINE
Should??? Uhm. Right. I haven’t read anything about the license just yet. Why “should” they? It’s not as if all Linux software is anti-commercial so they don’t have to “give it asway for free”.
I don’t understand why Microsoft never said the same thing about WineX, Win4lin, etc. And in other extend all commercial (proprietary or Free) applications. What is Microsoft’s credibility in this discussion anyway? The development of the _code_ hasn’t been started.
Instead of building some great fata morgana i suggest to stick to reality which means that we have currently already a few of these options available.
OTOH, MS funded XEN, a fast VM.
“they simply do not understand the threat.”
I think the Halloween documents proof otherwise. What it also shows is that Microsoft, in its huge hierarchy, has one major problem IMNSHO: the utter lack of self-reflection and self-criticism.
“Red Hat, ever since, have made available on the internet the .iso images, packages, and the corresponding source codes of their distros.”
The former is something SUSE doesn’t do. SUN is based on SUSE, therefore SUN is a proprietary Linux vendor.
>> If the software developed by a Filipino company that
>> enables Windows programs to run on Linux is indeed meant to
>> propagate “open source computing,” then the firm should
>> give it away for free
How many times does this need to be said: open source software does NOT need to be free (as in beer). There are several different licences (GPL, LGPL, Mozilla-type licences, etc) and the GPL only states that the source has to be provided as well if a program is distributed in binary form. NOTHING about that you can’t charge the customer for the program! (binary or source)
This is just FUD by MS (again).
I agree that David should not necesarilly be free. I’d love to see it as an Open Source product however, or parts of it at least.
And the day it comes out (and it works), it will be a threat to Microsoft. I already run most Open Source products instead of the M$ products, but sometimes there’s just no alternative (eg. banking software in Belgium -Isabel- runs only on Windows)
It would give me the opportunity to run all applications on Linux (even MacOSX ?) but I will certainly not run it to use Microsoft Word. I’ve abandonned those already for a long time.
In my eyes, this could be one of the last pieces missing to throw out Windows completely in business environments .
They seem to be worried about David (so take a closer look at it), whilst still showing a total lack of understanding of how free and open source software will work. Open source software does not exclude selling proprietary software if people actually want it.
What is described here:
already exists: They call it the “Microsoft Terminal Server” aka “Remote Desktop”. Some may also call it Citrix. And there is a Linux client for both MTS and Citrix.
microsoft might indeed be right,
maybe they should release DAVID as OSS
if only microsoft understood the whole concept……
the authors finalise DAVID, get it working and decide to charge, hmmm $50 per copy on cd, pre-compiled.
They also release the source as open source, for free
other developers come along, download the sources and either, make their own version and release that, or help the SpecOps team make DAVID even better than it was
This would be a major back fire against microsoft and once again proves that they are totally at a loss to understand the open source movement
“So tell me this, what buisness in their right mind wants to lose DOLLARS?”
You’re missing the point. Microsoft is an ass. They obviously don’t give a dam that there are several lawsuits against them, they just keep paying up from their large wealth and ignore the morality of it. If they were a repeat offendor before a court their history would likely be taken into account and it would be seen that they show no intention of changing their ways, which in itself would be grounds for criminal punishment. So it’s not JUST about them or any business not wanting to lose dollars, it’s about an arrogant monopolistic capitalist communist company trying sticking their nose in where it doesn’t belong. You call it big business, I call it spiritual death. You obviously are in bed wit Bill Gates.
sorry, even I missed the point in my last post…
we don’t need to wait until SpecOps releases David, we just need to re-read the statement microsoft put out.
They really do not understand oss
It will be the beast that kills them.
Watch this space !
I didn’t read all opinions , just first posts…
To me this looks quite bizarre, David has not even proven to be any better then Wine, if not only a Wine modification. This is just all “hype” . It would be better to see if it actually is something.
MS making David project even more “popular”, I hope the David programmers will deliver the excellent program they claim they will have now. Or they will be humiliated. Like those suckers with Duke Nukem For Ever
How many times have we heard that you can make money on Open Source, just because you can “charge for support” and other trivialities?
Well, guess what: as a business model, OS sucks.
Extremely few O.S companies ever made a profit or broke even. And this only for server software, where need for support is sometimes major. Even IBM makes most of its money by selling Hardware on Linux, and closed source programs such as WebSphere and DB2 that run on Linux.
Almost noone made any money selling desktop Linux software. And Linux has many more users than Amiga or Atari ever had in the 80’s/90’s, two platforms that DID support a desktop software industry.
JBoss, the “leading” O.S j2ee server were partying because they got 10 million $ in investment, recently. This is just pocket money for any proprietary software company, and even more so in the j2ee server business.
So, even if you make some money from O.S software it will be less that the money you would make from closed source.
Free software like Linux, isn’t free as in cost, it’s free as in freedom to view and modify the source code as you wish to.
Windows source code was leaked, for older windows (ie NT/2000) and after 6 weeks in development here is a software company that claims to have a software package that allows users to run older winNT binaries natively on linux… I don’t know about the rest of you but that trows up red flags in my mind.
I think MS’s ploy in this ruse is to get the source so they can be sure it’s not their leaked source code. It would save them a lot of legal time and money to have the source freely available. And since the company is based in the Philipines I’m not sure there is a lot the US legal system can do, but you KNOW MS will be trying to defend their property so one way or another they will attempt to get that source code to verify its legality.
I’m honestly surprised that they didn’t just go their normal route of a Cease and Desist letter and prompt litigation.
Must be because of all the bad press they’ve gotten recently.
We’re dealing with two totally different issues here. One is open source software. When you obtain open source software you can really see how it works and modify it.
Completely different from OSS is free software. That, of course, is software that you don’t have to pay for.
These are often “bundled” together but not always. Much of the software I use on Mac OS X is free, but not OS. And it is entirely possible to ship source code with commercial (non-GPLed) software.
“Well, guess what: as a business model, OS sucks. ”
Hmm… well, so that means good ethics and morals do not lead to profits? Interesting.
I keep seeing arguments that Open Source is anti-business. Well ho hum, maybe that’s a good thing. Maybe this is a first important step away from a world that operates on a basis of money.
I think we are going to see more and more increase in morally or ethically correct software (and other things), and this is going to increasingly show a constrast against traditional `business` or even the traditional world view that money is everything. Money is a manmade concept, we are not emprisoned by it. We invented it, we can uninvent it.
I agree, OS might not be the best thing for business, yet, or maybe someone just hasn’t figured out a way to do it well. Maybe their business practices need to be ordered along the same moral and ethical lines as the software they support.
“I think its terribly naive if people think that the only “good” software is something that is obtained for no charge. Get real people, it’s a commercial world.”
It’s also naive to think that not charging money is the same thing as software freedom.
Wasn’t it that Bill Gates said _hardware_ should be free (beer) implying software should be paid for? Why should this case be different?
Just a very small part of the code leaked, so it wouldn’t be very useful for this project.
Me? I think this David thing is just hot air if not scam.
Extremely few O.S companies ever made a profit or broke even.
Extremely few new companies make a profit of break even, no matter what model they follow. At least in Brazil only 1 out of every 20 new companies manage to last more than 3 years. Might be similar in most countries.
I never read any study showing that open source companies survive less than proprietary source companies. Do you have some data to back your claims up?
This is just pocket money for any proprietary software company
Not for 99.999% of the companies. You think every single company is like Microsoft?
If you read the David article, you will remember that their chief engineer said David was pieced together from WINE, a bunch of other WINE-like projects, and a little proprietary code. More than likely, the bulk is WINELIB. WINE is released under the LGPL, so David won’t have to be open source… which is too bad, because then we won’t see how much is actually new code, and how much is just recycled from WINE.
Basically, David is just marketing hype over a slight modification of WINE. Throw some glitzy graphics on a web page, pay some writers to hype the product, pay a “Doctor” of Computer Science to extoll the advantages of the product, and hope the average person is too dumb to realize they’ve been ripped off.
You might have noticed that the “demo” they did ran ONE Windows product under David that already works fine in most current Windows VEs. It was also run by them and none of those present were allowed to actually try the programs themselves… they had to make sure no one accidentally tried the feature(s) that fail, or that demonstrate it was really just WINE repackaged.
quote paul :
“I think we are going to see more and more increase in morally or ethically correct software (and other things), and this is going to increasingly show a constrast against traditional `business` or even the traditional world view that money is everything. Money is a manmade concept, we are not emprisoned by it. We invented it, we can uninvent it.”
Nice message, I agree with you.
Big companies (M$) don’t need to earn as much money as they do now, why do these people work to buy 5 cars and ruin the environment? Really , that’s not what makes people happy… that’s just an image of happyness thrown at us from the media, sponsored by these companies destroying our earth, and mankind with it.
I see a big money hungry company like a handsome vampire, she seduces you , you think you will have pleasure with her and give in , and then she bites, sucks all your blood out of you. You die.
MS, Exxon Mobyle, Shell, Coca Cola, McDonals , Disney, Procter and Gamble, Nestle … all vampires.
Environmental doom is not far from us by the way… even the Pentagon called the environmental treath much bigger then the terrorist treath. Just to say “look we warned you , but you wouldn’t listen” when it happens. Stop using M$ products and all other products from companies who are only after money, care nothing about ethics. It’s not only the fault of the big companies , it’s the consumer’s fault. Every product you buy from bad companies is support to them to keep using their marketing tactics: lots money wasted for advertising, making a “good image”, and behind the screens do what they want with people, animals, the environment, etc.
Do we want to let them walk away with that?
sry I got carried away
You should see this website : http://www.karmabanque.com , really good about ethical consuming , etc
Not real sure why I said what I said in the subject line but I feel as though something fishy is going on here.
If SpecOps’ David truly isn’t a hoax
then this company better THINK before they act. I try not to be a zealot, and will recognize that Microsoft has incredibly smart people working for them. The community needs to focus and think as well and make sure not to fall into a trap.
I say…I feel as though something is fishy because I still doubt it is not vaporware or fudware(software that actually exists but is not what was promised since it’s real purpose is to spread FUD). I’ve left comments at osnews before
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=6616“ (comment: 43)
talking about who I am. In particular if SpecOps along w/De La Salle University reads this I am going to the Philippines this Summer and would want to see this for myself to confirm for myself. Perhaps as a representative of osnews.com (Eugenia?) I can present what I find although the community should constantly be careful and question everything including me…and not necessarily trust what I have to say.