More halfbaked reporting from ZDNet searching for a story & M$ foot-in-mouth disease

[Statica]

Is Micro$oft secretly using open source?

An excruciatingly painful write-up, that provides little or no new information than that was previously known to everyone and their dog. But for the funny comments ..' Microsoft Vice President Craig Mundie, for example, said in a recent speech that all open-source software "has inherent security risks and can force intellectual property into the public domain." ', this would be a total waste of time.

thumbs down

[mairving]

Actually I thought that it was timely. MS says they no longer use open-source software (FreeBSD) on their Hotmail site when in fact they do. They had to do some backpedaling on the issue and give out several statements. Maybe they will even retract this statement about open-source software being a "cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches". That statement was so full of irony it was almost funny.

I also read that they are now taking a different approach to their server wars. They are having their people talkdown Linux & BSD to the corporate guys. Not the IT guys, but the higher ups who don't know better but control spending.

[WickedLittleSlaveBoy]

actually, their "attacks" have been focused on the GPL, which:

1. is not an open source license.

2. is described by GNU as being virulent by nature...meaning that it destroys proprietary intellectual property. cancer is a bad term, but viral isn't exact a lovely term, either. why would they have to retract anything, when it's clearly stated by the licensing organization that the license is infectious?

all of the requirements on the BSD license have been met, on the BSD-based software that MS has used. at least half of the TCP/IP stack and basic applications used in windows is derived from BSD, along with NT/2000's DNS server, which MS has repeatedly admitted is a modified BIND implementation. MS can't be faulted in any way for using BSD source, since other manufacturers have done it, too. might as well burn Apple, HP, Sun Microsystems and others at the stake, if you're going to fault MS for using BSD code.

MS's attack on BSD is being harped on by the Linux advocates in an effort to get their support.....but, don't be fooled by it, MS is really only concerned with GNU right now.

all of the hotmail servers I'm hitting right now are all IIS on 2000, at least they're trying to put their money where there mouth is.

[WickedLittleSlaveBoy]

an excerpt from ftp.exe from Windows 98:

@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
All rights reserved.

looks like their in compliance with the old BSD license to me. I also notice a copy of the GPL and sources on the NT 4 Resource Kit. Lucent, Be, and Novell, among others, haven't been nice enough to keep the license agreements from the open source/GPL code that they use.

[mairving]

is not an open source license.

According to the Open Source Initiative, GPL is a valid open source license. I really don't know how one could say the GPL is not an open source license. It is the most open of the licenses since the license requires it.

is described by GNU as being virulent by nature...meaning that it destroys proprietary intellectual property

It does not mean that it destroys intellectual property rights. This means that it has the ability to spread quickly and be easily propagated. I have also never seen where GNU actually said this.

all of the hotmail servers I'm hitting right now are all IIS on 2000, at least they're trying to put their money where there mouth is.

According to the article:

"Microsoft conceded FreeBSD was still being used at Hotmail on machines that track advertising and that run a crucial Internet function known as "DNS hosting.

The spokesman said FreeBSD was still in use simply because the company had yet to switch the machines over to Windows.

But one employee of the Redmond, Wash., company said Microsoft has deliberately kept FreeBSD in parts of Hotmail because of its technical superiority over Windows in important functions and furthermore had decided to actually increase its reliance on FreeBSD. Many of the company's Web sites went down much of a day in January, and this person said FreeBSD was judged to be better than Windows at helping to prevent a recurrence of the problem."


Also in the article is this statement "Microsoft, though, hasn't previously suggested that there were benign forms of open-source software, and while singling out Linux for special criticism, has tended to criticize all open-source with the same broad brush." That is what I mean about MS making a retraction. They tend to trash anything that is not MS, especially those products that are free, crash less and perform better.

[WickedLittleSlaveBoy]

According to the Open Source Initiative, GPL is a valid open source license.

you should read the GNU press releases more thoroughly. GNU is a "free" software license, not open source. Open source would suggest that the source is open, the GPL is anything but open.

the GNU statement in question

It is the most open of the licenses since the license requires it.

this is against the nature of open software. the BSD license is the closest, because it doesn't disallow you from using it any way you see fit.

It does not mean that it destroys intellectual property rights.

at least read what I say, before you start disputing my statements. go back and reread what I said, cause I'm not typing it again.

those products that are free, crash less and perform better.

that's a mighty general statement, I would be interested in seeing you prove your claims....since you seem to be the resident expert. 8)

[Statica]

This is a preemptive SSSH .. keep personal bickering out of this thread and this board, try to rise above it, no one has stood for that, which lets this place be decent enough to get some solutions thrashed out.

If you want to dispute statements FINE .. go ahead .. but you will PLEASE not attack another member. Mairving has made no such claim and perhaps if you could prove your claim there would be some validity.

Cheers.

Originally posted by WickedLittleSlaveBoy . . that's a mighty general statement, I would be interested in seeing you prove your claims....since you seem to be the resident expert. 8)

[WickedLittleSlaveBoy]

I see that I have been censored. later.

[Statica]

No your posts werent censored, I moved them to admin to clean up this place since it seemed we were having a personal conversation.. I had sent you a PM before.

[mairving]

I guess that we will just have to agree to disagree on this one, WLSB. It is certainly nothing personal. Calling me the resident expert is a big stretch. I am only an expert in what I can read. Anyway I respect everyone's opinion just happen to disagree with yours in this case.