Microsoft WiX Code Released to SourceForge.Net 686
nberardi writes "On Monday, April 5, 2004, as part of the Shared Source Initiative, Microsoft released the source code for the Windows Installer XML (WiX) developer tool to SourceForge under the IBM Common Public License or CPL. The WiX project is the first Shared Source Initiative to go "public" on Source Forge rather than a Microsoft site. It is also the first to use an externally created Open Source license. Microsoft supports the idea that a software developer should be free to choose how they license their work and for the goals of WiX, the CPL was the right fit. Is this another ploy from Microsoft to not look like the bad guy, or do you think they are embracing on the Open Source movement?" Slashdot and SourceForge are both part of OSDN.
Is my calendar wrong?! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Is my calendar wrong?! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Is my calendar wrong?! (Score:4, Funny)
You mean the April Fools from two years ago, right?
Hmm.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder what the open source landscape would be like if Microsoft were not regarded as the great satan.
It would certainly be interesting.
Re:Hmm.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft may very well be destined to follow IBM's path. After all, much of Microsoft's most despised business tactics are simply refined IBM techniques.
IBM lost control of the IT market when hardware began to shift towards decentralized microcomputers (not that the heavier iron part of IT is entirely gone). It shifted further when IBM lost control of the platform they design
Re:And now for something completely different... (Score:5, Insightful)
business.
plan b) 1000s of eyes don't trust their purity if they look at the code, bugs don't get fixed in the installer, opensource proven again to be bad, ms still better(tm). good business.
and the other side of the coin, now it will be easier to create software that will install on ms, so why bother learning the complex and difficult rpm or deb formats, ms install is right there, complete with 10 different free guis to setup.
ms gets more software to install on it. good business.
bonus round: perhaps someone will port port, apt-get or yum features to MSInstaller, dll hell either gets fixed or goes away.
personnally i'm failing to see where this is a 'bad idea'(tm) for ms
Sharing isn't different, free is different (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do people get surprised when corporations behave according to the pro
Re:Sharing isn't different, free is different (Score:3, Interesting)
I think this is a trial balloon. If it works, all the better; they get the browny points of being 'open' and all.
I, for one, think that, once Mono is fully mature, and after MS Office has been re-done in C#, we may well see a Linux binary version. Would not expect to see MS Word on Sourceforge anytime soon, mind you...
Uhm (Score:5, Funny)
Someone send Lucifer some mittens and one of those funky Russian hats... Must be mighty cold down there right now...
Re:Uhm (Score:3, Funny)
This is not news (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is not news (Score:3, Informative)
(Hey, maybe I can get a "troll" rating, too. And maybe this will be read in China, they'll put me on a "banned" list, and they'll stop sending me all that "big5" spam
Re:This is not news (Score:5, Funny)
Funny, most of the spam I get tells me that 5 isn't big enough!
Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
Has anyone here who's posting actually downloaded it and tried it yet?
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Funny)
Come on now, most slashdotters don't even manage to read the article, let alone read, download, extract, compile and execute the article. I think you're pissing into the wind with this one.
Jedidiah.
Re:Prediction (Score:4, Insightful)
MS first tried their "shared" source initiative, and it was basically a flop because of the very restrictive license which basically only allowed you to look at the code. Now they are taking another shot with a real Open Source license, though as I suspected, they are releasing a low profile, and uninteresting project. There are tons of installers for MS windows already, including freeware, Open Source and commercial. To me this suggest that MS is only doing another PR stunt. They are not taking OSS seriously, and have this little project there to say, "look, we do open source as well". The "leaders" at MS have _always_ stressed their position on "IP", and MS will not give anything away or share it with _any_ community.
If MS wanted to show people that they were serious about OSS and wanted to actually try to build a community of loyal developers like with OSS, they would release something more significant, yet not one of their big "IP" projects. For example, why not release windows explorer (not IE)? That code _needs_ some serious fixing. When you are trying to user explorer.exe as a file manager, it constantly locks files and directories and makes it a pain to use. The only "fix" is to either log out or run taskmgr and kill and restart explorer.exe. The problem with that is that your shell is restarted and you often lose many of your notification area icons.
MS has the potential to drastically change their public appearance and even possibly build a community of loyal developers working in their own free time similar to OSS. However, to achieve that, MS will need to give something as a good faith token gesture to the community and not keep their hands on it. This is where MS will fail based on what they have shown us in the past. MS has tons of smaller applications that they do not sell that they could release and have people work on these applications in an _open_ fashion without MS trying to keep their controlling hand on the project. How about notepad, wordpad, HyperTerminal, ms paint, cmd.exe, backup, sound recorder, volume control, windows movie maker, calculator, freecell, Hearts, Pinball, Solitaire, etc. All of these apps MS could release and allow the community to develop further. MS would still include them into their release by grabbing the latest stable build and putting that through testing.
Re:Prediction (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Prediction (Score:4, Interesting)
Jonah Hex
Re:Prediction (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Uhm (Score:5, Informative)
Re:[offtopic] Re:Uhm (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yes. Karma does increase. And no, they dont car (Score:3, Funny)
He acts like he runs the place.
Embrace and... (Score:5, Insightful)
Rob Mensching comments on (Score:5, Informative)
Now, let's talk about why WiX was released as Open Source. First, working on WiX has never been a part of my job description or review goals. I work on the project in my free time. Second, WiX is a very developer oriented project and thus providing source code access increases the pool of available developers. Today, there are five core developers (Robert, K, Reid, and Derek, thank you!) regularly working on WiX in their free time with another ten submitting fixes occasionally. Finally, many parts of the Open Source development process appeal to me. Back in 1999 and 2000, I did not feel that many people inside Microsoft understood what the Open Source community was really about and I wanted to improve that understanding by providing an example.
After four and a half years of part-time development, the WiX design (and most of the code) matured to a point where I was comfortable trying to release it externally. So, last October I started looking for a means to release not only the tools but the source code as well. I thought GotDotNet was the place. However, at that time, none of the existing Shared Source licenses were flexible enough to accept contributions from the community. Then, in February, I was introduced to Stephen Walli who was also working to improve Microsoft's relationship with the Open Source community. Fortunately, Stephen was much farther along than I and had the step-by-step plan how to release an Open Source project from Microsoft using an approved OSS license.
Today, via WiX on SourceForge, you get to see the results of many people's efforts to improve Microsoft from the inside out. I'm not exactly sure what is going to happen next but I'm sure there are quite a few people who are interested to see where this leads. Personally, all I hope is that if you find the WiX toolset useful then you'll join the community and help us improve the toolset.
Obligatory "not GPL" rant (Score:2, Interesting)
Open Code + bug fixes + hidden extensions == incompatible again.
Re:Obligatory "not GPL" rant (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyday I find myself more in agreement with that sig that says "Linux is good, but I can't stand the users". Or to put a common bumpersticker saying in context "Linus, save me from your followers".
Re:Obligatory "not GPL" rant (Score:5, Insightful)
Not true.
From the CPL version 1.0:
The CPL is a 'copyleft' license, just like the GPL. The main point of difference is that the CPL has a software-patent protection clause, which the GPL does not.
(However, Eben Moglen has indicated that this may be included in the next version of the GPL, which would make it compatible)
How about neither? (Score:5, Insightful)
This means nothing. MS is simply trying to look good, and it's well worth it to improve their image, which I fear has suffered of late... (funding SCO).
Re:How about neither? (Score:5, Insightful)
Confuse "Shared Source" vs. "Open Source" (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet another anaology (Score:5, Funny)
Bill Gates: Your friends up there at the sanctuary website [indicates sourceforge] are falling into a trap.
Linus reacts. Bill Gates notes it
Bill Gates: As is your open source community
Bill Gates: It was I who allowed the Open Source Community to know the source code of Windows Installer XML (WiX) developer tool. It is quite safe from your pitiful little band. An entire legion of my best Coders awaits them.
Linus' look darts from Bill Gates to Steve Ballmer and, finally, to the Tablet PC in Bill Gates hand.
Bill Gates: Oh...I'm afraid the Trusted Computing Architecture will be quite operational when your friends arrive.
To be continued
OMG (Score:5, Funny)
Linus: NOOOOOooOOOOoooOOOoooOOOooOOooooo........
embracing open source? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:embracing open source? (Score:5, Interesting)
If it's no big deal, then why is it nearly impossible for me to get a standard way for installing softwre on linux? I understand that most distros come with a packaging manager, but if I want to write a program, allow downloads from my site, then (to the best of my knowledge) there's no way for it to easily be installed and have menu shortcuts etc set up....
Re:embracing open source? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:embracing open source? (Score:3, Insightful)
So if Opera doesn't want to keep supplying 12 versions, they just have to open their source and supply a tar.gz, which EVERYONE can install. At that point, it's also trivial for disto maintainers to package it up as a binary so that their users can install it with $PACKAGE_MANAGER.
Anyway, the installers are more-or-
Re:embracing open source? (Score:4, Informative)
Follow this [freedesktop.org] and your menu entries will show up for KDE and GNOME. Users of other DEs normally have enough nouse to add menu entries themselves (or their DEs can load GNOME/KDE menus).
As for installers, at wort you can just statically compile into an rpm - no dependency issues then. As long as you provide a source tar ball as well then most everyone will be happy (and if your program is any good, it'll get included in the package repositories of the various distributions).
If that doesn't appeal, you could always support autopackage [autopackage.org].
Jedidiah.
Re:embracing open source? (Score:5, Informative)
Autopackage is a cross-distribution installation system for Linux, mostly designed for desktop apps. With Autopackage it's very easy to create packages that automatically integrate with GNOME and KDE and support non-root installs.
We're close to 1.0. We've recently changed our plans a little to reach 1.0 earlier so we can have more users ==> which means more developers.
Autopackage 1.0 will not be perfect, it will just be a "it works, and works well". The really cool features such as RPM/APT/YUM integration is scheduled for post-1.0.
Please lend your hand and support us. The more users/packagers we have, the better, because that means we'll probably also get more developers who can help us with the post-1.0 cool features and make Linux installation even better.
Re:embracing open source? (Score:5, Insightful)
-B
This is /.! (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, you'll have some conspiracy theorist claiming its a money-saving move to make sf pay for all the bandwidth of d/ling the source! So, not only are they the bad guy in this scenario, but they also are using open source to bring open source down!
If MS open sourced all their apps, there would STILL be a large "we hate MS" movement on slashdot... mostly from people that haven
Re:This is /.! (Score:5, Interesting)
There would be and it would be justified. Why you ask? The hatred of Microsoft (at least in my case) doesn't stem from the fact that they use closed source software. As much as I like open source software I do recognize the fact that companies exist to make money -- and they believe (whether this is correct or not remains to be seen) that they will make more money with closed source software. I don't have a problem with that.
My dislike of Microsoft comes from their business practices. Crushing Netscape, RealPlayer, Wordperfect, Eudora, etc etc by levering their monopoly position on the desktop has nothing to do with closed or open source software. Watch their conduct in the coming search engine wars -- they will tie everything in with the OS in the name of "innovation" and "helping the end user" but in the end it's really just a ploy to exterminate Google and Yahoo. Just as IE was a ploy to exterminate Netscape. Microsoft can't stand the idea that they might actually have to compete on merit -- so they use their monopoly.
I can't really call them evil because I'd probably be doing the same thing if I was in their shoes. I will call my Government evil for allowing them to get away with it however. WTF is the point of anti-trust laws and the Sherman act if it isn't enforced?
Question (Score:4, Insightful)
What's the difference between IE's integration into the Windows shell and Konquerer's integration into KDE?
I don't see the big fucking deal. I run Windows XP at work yet--gasp--choose to run Firefox. Believe it or not, Microsoft isn't holding a gun to my head...
Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Konqueror can be removed without taking the entire system down. On Windows, you can remove the shortcuts for IE at most.
2. KDE and Linux don't have a monopoly. When you're a monopoly, the rules change (why do people *still* don't know this after all these years?). With great power comes great responsibility - Microsoft has great power, KDE does not.
"I don't see the big fucking deal. I run Windows XP at work yet--gasp--choose to run Firefox. Believe it or not, Microsoft isn't holding a gun to my head..."
Yeah that's great. How much % market share does Firefox have again?
And that's the problem. As competitor, even though you can exist, the chance that you get a big enough market share is almost zero.
For example, you're the developer of BonchBrowser. BonOffice is smaller (only 500 KB!), faster (renders 10 MB HTML in 2 seconds), uses much less memory than IE (1 MB only), is 100% standards compliant, has popup and ad blocking, is secure, etc. etc.
Can you get more than, say, 40% of the browser market share? I don't think so! IE is already installed on all Windows computers, people will not switch to BonchBrowser even if it really is better than IE. As competitor you simply has no chance to beat them no matter what you do, simply because MS has a monopoly.
Re:Question (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)
And then many, many applications will break.
"I already knew that. It doesn't change the fact that there is no difference."
There is a difference. MS being a monopoly IS the difference.
And the fact that IE can't be removed *without breaking tons of stuff* is also a difference.
"Does it mean KDE will remove its integration once it reaches a certain percentage of acceptance?"
Yes! If KDE has a monopoly on the desk
Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)
1) The KDE team Produces a desktop environment overlayed on an existing operating system, not an entire turnkey solution as MS does.
2) You can pick and choose which components of KDE you want to use. It is my understanding that you don't even have to have Konquerer installed to use KDE, but I could be wrong.
3) KDE is free and open. You are in charge when using KDE and not the other way around.
4) The KDE team has never (to my knowledge) been responsible for signing OEM deals where the vendor is restricted from installing other software from competitors as MS has been.
Next!
Re:This is /.! (Score:5, Interesting)
They gave a product away for free, thereby rendering the commerical product at such a great disadvantage that no-one had a reason to use it.
And how is this different from software released under OpenSource?
Re:This is /.! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is /.! (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is that I can take KHTML and port it to another system, like AtheOS or Mac OSX, while I can't take IE and port it to Linux.
I can take Evolution and port it to another system, and I cannot do that with Outlook. So Open Source software benefits everybody, while MS's free giveaways only benefit the people who pay MS money. Quite a difference.
The whole point of these 'free' applications is to lock the users into one proprietary
Re:This is /.! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, RealOne sucks ass but if you think Microsoft came up with Windows Media Player to save the masses from the evil of RealPlayer you are delusional. MS would have crushed them regardless of what they did.
questionable... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:questionable... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:questionable... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:questionable... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you can not defeat them... (Score:3, Funny)
this is a windows installer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Cue tinfoil hat ravings (Score:5, Funny)
OTOH, I expect several hundred postings, all the rough equivalent of:
Re:Cue tinfoil hat ravings (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally I want Free software to be easily installable on Windows. More to the point, I have a proprieatry program that I want to be able to install on Windows and I don't like our current solution for this. The company that produces our current installer has been worthless at providing support and fixes.
Having a Free installer will let us scratch whatever Windows installation itches we may have.
Big deal for SourceForge (Score:5, Insightful)
Ploy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing's changed. But the software is useful and it's nice to know that public opinion can hold some sway over Microsoft, however tenuous
eyarg (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, that's why people diferentiate between "Open Source" and "Free Software". Open Source implies, sometimes falsely, what Free Software explicitly states. One project of SF does not make you a proponent of Free Software. Let's wait and see how MS follows this up.
However, it is interesting if you want to see what MS code looks like. I wonder if they spent weeks cleaning it and going to code reviews to make sure it is a good example of MS software.
Microsoft+Sourceforge?? (Score:2, Funny)
That makes the new calculation to Armageddon, what, next week?
Microsoft becoming like AT&T of old? (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in the day, way long ago, AT&T was a greedy monopoly. Then, realizing it was a monopoly, AT&T invented lasers, transistors, Unix and a bunch of other stuff. But, they were a greedy monopoly first. Then, they became a benevolent monopoly, which we broke up so that we could have lots more phone ads, calling plans, and more expensive phones than ever.
If MS does morph into a benevolent monopoly like AT&T of old, should we break it up just for market's sake?
Re:Microsoft becoming like AT&T of old? (Score:4, Funny)
Nah, just for the sake of nostalgia.
Microsoft and AT&T are like apples and oranges (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft also has a monopoly, only on the desktop. But the
Re:Microsoft becoming like AT&T of old? (Score:3, Insightful)
MS is a natural monopoly, which is not illegal. What is illegal is how they use their monopoly (several courts have already found against them, the fact that they have used their monoply
Bush does some things that are seemingly good (Score:2, Insightful)
What is to be understood here is that MS has an interest in there being a lot of free/cheap easy-to-install programs for their OS. Now that they've released WiX, less companies will be willing to pay for, say, InstallShield(/whatever) and as there a more programs that will use WiX, the feel of the OS-operation will be that it is more harmonious. How many times have you installed programs that have crap-ass installers an didn't have proper uninstall features
...or maybe they're being practical... (Score:5, Insightful)
has always made a point of not liking "the viral nature" of GPL.
So, this could actually be an honest experiment to see what they can gain from the OS-development
model, and not even pretending to be anything else than what they are, a company trying to make
profit.
Background Details of WiX (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Background Details of WiX (Score:5, Funny)
More details (Score:4, Informative)
Is it useful to their rivals? (Score:4, Insightful)
However, could there be a piece of software less useful to the Linux/UNIX/etc community? We already have a bunch of mostly incompatable ways to install software.
Still, it could prove useful for open source developers targeting the Windows platform, and may provide a boost for cross platform tools such as GAIM.
Some open source projects (e.g. Apache httpd) already distribute their software in MSI form. I wonder how they create their packages - this could be a way for their developers to use less closed source software.
I'm still tending towards the "another ploy from Microsoft to not look like the bad guy", but I am a cynic.
A few points to consider: (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Microsoft wins by getting people to develop their software for free.
2) Microsoft wins by getting "good press" for having released something in their Shared Source Initiative program.
3) Microsoft wins more "good press" by placing the released application on SourceForge (the well-known bastion of Open Source developers).
4) Microsoft wins because it persuades people it is playing nice, people let their guard down, and then Microsoft slowly spreads their foul seed....
Can an 800 pound gorilla known for deceit and the ability to subtly infiltrate and influence almost any industry it touches really be trusted?
Hungry, hungry hypocrisy (Score:5, Interesting)
They should at least have the decency to explain why they think their old views are wrong.
Re:Hungry, hungry hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft as a company hasn't straight-up said OSS is the work of the devil. They're exploring an avenue of socialist software development. I think everyone here should respect this initial dabbling, and promote it. If they continue this trend, it's good for everyone.
I thought the day would never come... (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft knows that their power lies in their broad userbase. By holding out this "olive branch" to the OSS community, they are preventing an embarrassement, especially in circles where OSS is finding more and more acceptance. For example, the city of Munich switched to Linux over Windows. Now OSS advocates have one less argument in their toolkit.
From now on, no one can accuse Microsoft of being completely closed source. Not that it really matters in the big picture, because their major applications are closed source, anyway.
There's always the possibility that this will get yanked like nullsoft's WASTE (secure file sharing). In this case, I suppose it is very unlikely.
All things considered, we should welcome Microsoft's foray into OSS cautiously, who knows what their motivation is...
Rational behaviour (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft looks at FOSS as a bad corporate strategy that will never earn them any money, and that will never make the best software in the world. But they aren't stupid: They do observe that quite a lot of good software is being made under open licenses.
Through making their installer a part of that, they make it easier to deploy good, free software on Windows. This is, in other words, a win-win-situation for Microsoft AND its customers. And even FOSS developers. And other developers (except those making propietary installers, of course).
More Information (Score:5, Informative)
http://blogs.msdn.com/robmen [msdn.com]
Not Funny (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see a lot of benefits to Microsoft doing something like this.. maybe they're just seeing them too.
Microsft gives away lots of free stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft has a released other tools for free to developers such as the Embedded Visual Tools for handhelds and phones. It was part of the larger effort to get a large software base for their CE platform when palm was the leader. It's so bug ridden they should release that to open source.
Then there was that browser they gave away for free, and Services For UNIX, event Dakimakura pillows in Japan.
Still it makes me wonder how for off this prediction is [informationweek.com] that says Microsoft will produce software for Linux in 2004. It's always fun to go back and see what people thought was going to happen.
Could this help Wine? (Score:3, Insightful)
For $DEITY's sake (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't you guys just once take something at face value instead of trying to find ulterior motives for everything? If it's damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't then why even bother?
Re:For $DEITY's sake (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't have any evidence that Microsoft is being sleasy here, but I am not going to discount that possibility (due to their history), as you seem to insist everyone should.
I don't see how questioning their intent is going to make them pack up their open source and leave. A blurb in the /. summary questioning the intentions of Microsoft isn't going to prevent anybody from
Not impressed... (Score:4, Insightful)
*Trojan Horse - in its original sense
*Strategic Move
*Distraction Tactics to assuage the roars that are sure to ensue after the release of the first Phoenix TCPA bioses.
*Some Microsoft developers appreciate the power of collaboration?
*Vitiate what people understand free software to be by mudding the waters even more. At the next Linux conference, Microsoft will proudly display that they too are contributing to open source. I can just see it now: "We use open source where it makes sense and make use of proprietary best practices to lead the world to a new paradigm of openness, yet realiably supported for the one and only company that you should trust". In other words, newspeak.
I wish to be proven wrong. If a Microsoft employee reads this. Prove us wrong and we'll welcome you. Compete on the strengths of office by providing a documented, free and open XML schema for Office. Make it easy to import openoffice documents by MS Office. While you are a it, open Source CIFS under an OSI approved license.
Then, I might begin believing.
Has no one bothered to read the developers blog? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Now, let's talk about why WiX was released as Open Source. First, working on WiX has never been a part of my job description or review goals. I work on the project in my free time. Second, WiX is a very developer oriented project and thus providing source code access increases the pool of available developers. Today, there are five core developers (Robert, K, Reid, and Derek, thank you!) regularly working on WiX in their free time with another ten submitting fixes occasionally. Finally, many parts of the Open Source development process appeal to me. Back in 1999 and 2000, I did not feel that many people inside Microsoft understood what the Open Source community was really about and I wanted to improve that understanding by providing an example.
After four and a half years of part-time development, the WiX design (and most of the code) matured to a point where I was comfortable trying to release it externally. So, last October I started looking for a means to release not only the tools but the source code as well. I thought GotDotNet was the place. However, at that time, none of the existing Shared Source licenses were flexible enough to accept contributions from the community. Then, in February, I was introduced to Stephen Walli who was also working to improve Microsoft's relationship with the Open Source community. Fortunately, Stephen was much farther along than I and had the step-by-step plan how to release an Open Source project from Microsoft using an approved OSS license.
Today, via WiX on SourceForge, you get to see the results of many people's efforts to improve Microsoft from the inside out. I'm not exactly sure what is going to happen next but I'm sure there are quite a few people who are interested to see where this leads. Personally, all I hope is that if you find the WiX toolset useful then you'll join the community and help us improve the toolset."
Interesting quote (Score:3, Informative)
Altruistic Microsoft - hardly! (Score:3, Insightful)
MS Office vs Corel Office vs Lotus Office etc
Internet Explorer vs Netscape vs Mosiac (oops IE again!)
and many other competing products.
Were the other applications much worse than MS's software - yes in some cases - but in other cases they were better. The reason that the other suites vanished is because MS used their position as vendors of the operating system to an unfair advantage to bundle MS applications at rates that were unsustainable for 3rd party vendors then having wiped out most of the competition they hiked the prices up again!
Look at a typical PC today. Apart from (say) a virus scanner and DVD/CD burning software the vast majority of the software will be MS owned and controlled. So having created a true monopoly, MS hikes up prices, adds 'features' like DRM that many users do not want then and add hardware keyed software protection measures to protect this monopoly.
Cobblers to this - I want a choice!
Don't get me wrong, I have spent most of my current IT career using MS O/S's but I am getting to the stage where I cannot justify using Windows for my own use and promoting this monopoly. My home PCs all have Windows/Linux dual boot on them and I will be moving over to pure Linux on 2/3 of the machines in the near future.
The only reason for one PC remaining on Windows is that my 4 year old daughter's favourite software (PC play and Learn - which is Macromedia Authorware based) will not run on Linux except by using a Crossover Office plugin and even then not in an acceptable fashion. Please, please Macromedia port the authorware runtime to Linux!
Bottom line - MS *IS* holding a gun to your head. What they want you to believe is "Pay our inflated monopolistic prices or stop using your PC!" (and most of Joe Public out there genuinely believe that).
I can understand MS copy protecting their applications such as Office, Developer Studio etc since there are suitable alternatives but not the operating system (if you want to use Windows software). This is especially nauseating when they drop support for earlier O/S versions after a fairly short while...
Is their open source offering a good thing? Absolutely.
Has the Leopard changed its spots? Of course not.
This hasn't cost MS a bean in real terms and has gained them some qudos by contributing to an open source project. They are, of course, the same greedy monopolistic empire that they always have been (IMHO of course!)
For goodness sake lets promote Linux usage as much as we can (in schools and workplaces) and perhaps we might be back to the position in which Joe Public has a real choice sometime soon.
Sorry about the rant but I think it is important.
Maybe they won't ever embrace open source (Score:3)
Microsoft didn't get to where they are today by being closed to change. Yes, when your on top and control the operating system that most of the world uses, you're perspective tends to be a little bit different than when yuo're the new kid on the block, but it should be becoming appearant to MS that open source is not just a fad, and it should also be apearant to them that it is not something that they can easily make go away, and so they're going to have to develop a buisiness strategy that doestake it into account.
My take on this is that they're testing the waters. See the general reaction to this, and learn some lessons for the next open source release. It's going to be interesting to see how this develops.
For as much as I dislike MS (Score:3, Insightful)
Good standings with the EU (Score:3, Insightful)
The code is underwhelming (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The code is underwhelming (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Don't know about motives (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that the tool concerned is a rather niche tool that is probably of only of interest to a relatively small number of developers is not going to factor in the press at all. Even so, I think that Microsoft is to be applauded for this, not slated; it's a big first step into a brave new world for them. Now is not the time to slap them in the face and deter them from making potentially more magnanimous releases in the future.
That's not to say I'm not still looking for the "embrance and extend" though.
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's fantastic for marketing. It's also fantastic for business. Anything that helps other people write apps that install better on Windows helps Microsoft.
This isn't so hard to understand...they get OSS PR benefits, as well as apps that make their OS look better. What's not to like from their end of it?
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:4, Interesting)
Probably, but I don't believe that open-source and moreso sourceforge having any requirements stating that any "open-source" project MUST run under xxxxx OS, does it?
And if you browse around alot of projects on SF, many say, "..were doing it in windows with a linux port hopefully down the line..."
So were you expecting Microsoft's first foray into the OSS world to be a cross platform offering? Seriously?
Re:Awful license (Score:3, Insightful)
At least, this is what I've seen with serveral Java related technologies that I've built into commercial products. Of course, any good license agreement to an end user disclaims responsibility anyway... something you have to do or you'd have every nut out there suing you for millio
Re:Where's the source??? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just use Nullsofts (Score:5, Informative)
Windows Installer has many benefits over installation software such as NSIS, old InstallShield (the non-Windows Installer versions), or other tools such as Inno Setup [innosetup.com].
Windows Installer supports installation rollbacks, so failures restore the system exactly back to the state before installation began. I'm not sure if NSIS or other installers support rollbacks, but I have encountered installers in the past that left files everywhere when they quit after a failure.
I just set up a Windows network as a learning experience, and Windows Installer packages greatly simplify and automate software installation on the network. For example, I can install Office by doing an administrative install, which basically copies all the installation files to a network location, and then assigning Office to network users via a couple clicks. Office is automatically installed when the computer restarts. This works with all Windows Installer packages that support an administrative install; places such ActiveState [activestate.com] even provide MSI packages for Python and Perl.
In addition to administrative installs, Windows Installer also supports application advertisement, which basically does things such as add only shortcuts or file associations. The program is automatically installed when the user clicks the shortcut or attempts to open a file.
There is also built-in package repair because Windows Installer keeps track of installed components. You can find more information about these and other features here [microsoft.com].
Mind you, Windows Installer technology itself is free, and the database system it uses is documented at MSDN. There are freeware MSI authoring tools such as Advanced Installer [advancedinstaller.com], and I recall seeing a web-based tool on SourceForge for modifying MSI packages. Your statement that Windows Installer adds a ton of crap your C drive which are not related to the actual program being installed is also unproven.
If you want small and fast installers with tools such as Inno Setup, by all means go ahead and use them, but they do make things more difficult for network administrators.