OSDev.org

Rusky wrote:

onlyonemac wrote:Microsoft making .NET open source is bad because it's Microsoft's way of luring users away from Mono and thus killing off Mono, leaving users with a .NET runtime that Microsoft can still effectively maintain full control over (despite it being open source).

What exactly is the difference between open source code written by Microsoft and open source code written by anyone else? You have the exact same freedoms, and large corporations giving their users those freedoms is exactly what Stallman wants.

Let's start with the difference between code written by Microsoft and code written by most other people (especially true open-source developers), as evidenced by the end product:

• Microsoft: write as much code as we can for the next release, and don't debug it thoroughly because we haven't got time for that and it's probably good enough as it is
• Other people: write as much code as is necessary for the next release, and if we haven't got time to debug it thoroughly then we'll either leave it out of the next release or delay the next release

and

• Microsoft: add as many new features and change as many things as we can between releases so that we've got some selling points to get people to upgrade
• Other people: add the features that people want and change the things that people don't like so that people will upgrade to the next release because they prefer it

With this difference in mind, let's look at the difference between an open source project run by Microsoft and an open source project run by most other people:

• Microsoft project: large volume of code is produced and released without thorough debugging and testing, and non-Microsoft contributors cannot keep up with the project (as developers, debuggers, testers, or whatever else) because of how much code there is and how quickly it is being produced
• Other people's project: moderate volume of code is produced and released after thorough debugging and testing, and any contributor will be able to keep up and fix bugs, improve the code, or implement new features that users request because the code is small enough to be understandable and isn't being produced faster than they can keep up (and there won't be as much work, because the original developers aren't likely to leave as many bugs lying around and are going to concentrate themselves on what features the users want)

Rusky wrote:...that's not "embrace, extend, extinguish." That's "embrace" without "extend" or "extinguish." Ye old triple-E was when they embraced a standard (like, say, HTML), extended the standard incompatibly (like, say, with IE6), and then when everyone started using their incompatible stuff the compliant versions were extinguished (like, say, Netscape). Contributing to their "direct competitors" (with Azure hosting and open-source .NET) is the exact opposite of that.

So what do you suggest is their intention with "embracing" direct competitors? How does helping competing projects, such as Linux and Eclipse, bring Microsoft any financial gain unless they plan to eventually either take over or kill off those projects? (Also note that the open source .NET is not an "embracing" of Mono so I don't know why that's in your list.)

Rusky wrote:Now, you could argue that WSL and Visual Studio might start doing that, but I doubt they will, because the point of WSL is to make it easier to write software to run on Azure and embedded systems, where you're not using WSL but plain-vanilla Linux. If Microsoft starts adding proprietary extensions, you'd have a point, but they haven't done that in ages and show every sign of contributing the source to any "extensions", so for now you have nothing to complain about.

Again, why do you think Microsoft would want developers to develop for a competing operating system? (Also I'm not sure that that is the point of WSL, but that's a bit of a different discussion.) And what's to say that Microsoft isn't going to start integrating proprietary extensions into their Linux distributions in order to get an edge over competitors such as RHEL and Ubuntu, when pretty-much their entire product line at the moment is proprietary and WSL and Azure are themselves proprietary?

Note also that the last step in my "10 steps to take over Linux" wasn't "extinguish" but rather "take over" - in other words, Microsoft isn't extinguishing Linux in order to continue their old product line without competition, but rather developing their own proprietary Linux distro to compete against and make obsolete other Linux distros and software such that they may gain control of the former Linux and Windows markets (the problem with that being: see previous comments about Microsoft's approach to software development).

Rusky wrote:And I also note that you dodged my question.

Which question did I apparently dodge?

Rusky wrote:unless you can give us some real criteria for when you'd no longer consider Microsoft's literal every move evil by default.

I consider the criteria real, but you clearly don't. Define what you mean by "real criteria" and I'll see if I can do better.

I LOLLed.
(I worked at Microsoft, btw).

iansjack wrote:

onlyonemac wrote:

iansjack wrote:they write software that is better suited to the requirements of corporations than anyone else does

No they do not.

So, what experience do you have of deploying a network across three continents with thousands of desktop clients and hundreds of servers?

None. But what I do know is this: if something doesn't work well in a small setup, it isn't going to scale well; if something does work well in a small setup, it is more likely to (but isn't guaranteed to) scale well. In other words, if Microsoft software fails horribly in a home or small office setup, it's going to fail even more horribly on a network across three continents with thousands of desktop clients and hundreds of servers. Linux, on the other hand, is specifically developed to scale well, and that's why it's used on the largest supercomputer clusters, because it scales well across thousands of network nodes. So if Linux scales well on a supercomputer cluster, why won't it scale well on a network across three continents with thousands of desktop clients and hundreds of servers?

iansjack wrote:

I'm not a business network administrator

No, you're not. What you think you know is worthless. I doubt that you even know what Group Policies are or how Active Directory works in practice.

Don't quote me out of context. Put that back in the original paragraph and you'll notice that I said "I have utilised many of these tools myself on occasion" so I do know how to configure Linux systems using tools that make it possible to implement multiple levels of access and control.

Also:

Group Policies: Configure what levels of access and control specific users, groups, computers, and networks may have over other specific users, groups, computers, or networks. Basically, configure "policies" for a "group" of entities.

Active Directory: A piece of proprietary networking crap with a fancy-sounding name (that is also rather confusing) that could be replaced in almost all instances with proper usage of DNS, mDNS, or other open standards (in specific use cases) if only Microsoft bothered to support such standards properly, and which refuses to work with Linux systems creating a big headache for me trying to get my mother's Windows computer and my Windows 10 virtual machine to access the same network resources that I use among my Linux systems.

alexfru wrote:(I worked at Microsoft, btw).

Maybe you'd like to tell us a little about their approach to software development? (Unless of course they forced to you sign an NDA as soon as you walked in the door.)

onlyonemac wrote:Active Directory: A piece of proprietary networking crap with a fancy-sounding name (that is also rather confusing) that could be replaced in almost all instances with proper usage of DNS, mDNS, or other open standards (in specific use cases) if only Microsoft bothered to support such standards properly, and which refuses to work with Linux systems creating a big headache for me trying to get my mother's Windows computer and my Windows 10 virtual machine to access the same network resources that I use among my Linux systems.

Um - Fail.

You should perhaps be thinking LDAP rather than DNS; and it is really very compliant with LDAP standards, but has numerous enhancements allowing efficient administrations of networks consisting of a large number of objects.

Hi,

iansjack wrote:So, explain how you pay when using the free components of Azure.

Everything that is stored on Microsoft servers gives Microsoft the «right» to look at it and disclose it to third parties. This way you pay with your freedom.

I'm not a GNU supporter. In fact, they write ugly code and software (see how static linking with glibc produces executables of outrageous size, and see how their true and false implementations are totally malcompliant with the POSIX standard). But I have to agree with them that something that is free as in money is not always free as in freedom.


Regards,
glauxosdever

glauxosdever wrote:see how static linking with glibc produces executables of outrageous size

Then don't static link with glibc. I don't think it's designed for static linking, which is probably why executables "have outrageous size" if you static link with it.

iansjack wrote:

onlyonemac wrote:Active Directory: A piece of proprietary networking crap with a fancy-sounding name (that is also rather confusing) that could be replaced in almost all instances with proper usage of DNS, mDNS, or other open standards (in specific use cases) if only Microsoft bothered to support such standards properly, and which refuses to work with Linux systems creating a big headache for me trying to get my mother's Windows computer and my Windows 10 virtual machine to access the same network resources that I use among my Linux systems.

Um - Fail.

You should perhaps be thinking LDAP rather than DNS; and it is really very compliant with LDAP standards, but has numerous enhancements allowing efficient administrations of networks consisting of a large number of objects.

Well I was close enough. The only practical difference between LDAP and mDNS is that mDNS is distributed whereas LDAP is centralised. Personally I prefer the former, but I guess you could use the latter as well and it's more similar to Active Directory. My point still holds though, that one could replace Active Directory with mDNS.

Also, Active Directory is still a pile of proprietary crap that doesn't work with my Linux systems, even if it's just a set of "enhancements" to something else.

onlyonemac wrote:The only practical difference between LDAP and mDNS is that mDNS is distributed whereas LDAP is centralised. Personally I prefer the former, but I guess you could use the latter as well and it's more similar to Active Directory. My point still holds though, that one could replace Active Directory with mDNS.

Jeez!

Such ignorance in one so young and so sure of themself.

In your dreams:

glauxosdever wrote:Everything that is stored on Microsoft servers gives Microsoft the «right» to look at it and disclose it to third parties.

In the real world:

Except as customer directs, Microsoft will not provide any third party: (1) direct, indirect, blanket or unfettered access to Customer Data; (2) the platform encryption keys used to secure Customer Data or the ability to break such encryption; or (3) any kind of access to Customer Data if Microsoft is aware that such data is used for purposes other than those stated in the request.

onlyonemac wrote:

alexfru wrote:(I worked at Microsoft, btw).

Maybe you'd like to tell us a little about their approach to software development?

First and foremost, whatever its current "humanitarian slogan" is, Microsoft exists to make money to continue its existence and to enrich the stakeholders. Given the market position, the company has certain freedoms as to what product features to add, what to release broken and what to scrap altogether, while taking into account some user input, ignoring other, trying to predict the future and planning and prioritizing work all the way. As a user I'm always unhappy about this or that broken, removed or made utterly inconvenient. But weather the company is evil or not and whether you think it is or not, it makes complex software and needs to sell it. It can't make its complex products perfect or nearly perfect, it can't please everyone. But like I just said, it needs to make money. So, unless the product is a complete disaster (like Vista at around 3 years mark), it will ship no matter what. There are ambitious people with ambitious ideas (or so they think), who make subpar or bold decisions and make things worse in the short term. So, you get every other release of Windows botched to some extent. But the next one is usually better. You also need to realize that large organizations have inherent systemic/structural features and problems (just like small have theirs). I can assure you that Microsoft does a lot of testing and a lot of it is good and it does testing much much better than many many other companies. But it can't find every bug (complexity is great, resources are limited) and it can't and won't fix every found bug (must ship and make a few shiny dollars). There's a bunch of bugs I filed that were subsequently resolved as "won't fix". It hurts to see something simple or something embarrassing addressed in this fashion, but it's not always in my powers to have something done my way in a large org. Security defects tramp others. If I can find security implications in a bug, I can bump up its priority. If I can't, chances are there will be some other, more important bugs and mine may live until the next release or forever. Now, I'm not trying to improve the company's image (they don't pay me anymore) and make it look white and warm and fluffy, I'm just saying that you aren't being fair to it. If tasked to turn profit, you too would be making and shipping less than a perfect product. And whatever you do or don't do, you'll always have those happy with it and those unhappy with it.

Likewise, if we focus on free software developers (you mentioned "other people", these would be said other people), things won't be as great as you say (it's true, though, that other people include other non-free software devs too). I myself tell people that in my project I won't do X or won't approve someone's Y but I could do Z instead because I have my own vision of the project and my own limited resources that only I decide how to use. And I too make mistakes and break things. But I try to fix that.

Just stop bashing the company. We all know it does great things and it does sucky things. There's no news in that.

iansjack wrote:

onlyonemac wrote:The only practical difference between LDAP and mDNS is that mDNS is distributed whereas LDAP is centralised. Personally I prefer the former, but I guess you could use the latter as well and it's more similar to Active Directory. My point still holds though, that one could replace Active Directory with mDNS.

Jeez!

Such ignorance in one so young and so sure of themself.

Does it really matter how much I know about Active Directory anyway? All I really need to know is "it's a Microsoft product intended to facillitate discovery of services on a network" in order to know that Linux/open-source tools can do the same thing but better.

onlyonemac wrote:Microsoft: write as much code as we can for the next release, and don't debug it thoroughly because we haven't got time for that and it's probably good enough as it is.

Oh wow. Never heard of Microsoft SDL, have we?

@Alex Foo: Do you not still think, though, that if Microsoft (or any company, in principle) listened more to their users and gave the users what they want, not what the company thinks will make the most money, that in the long run users will value the company more and invest more in their products? I still maintain that if Microsoft didn't have such a big market presence then they wouldn't be able to sell Windows in the state that it's in, or any of the software that they sell with the approach that they take to getting money from software.

That's why, for example, I don't have any problem investing in Google products even though a lot of their products are proprietary. Not only do Google develop and use open standards (as in, true open standards, where there is enough documentation available for one to develop a fully-compatible implementation)) but they also focus on delivering the products and services that users want, not the products and services that they can write the best advertising campaign about.

onlyonemac wrote:Does it really matter how much I know about Active Directory anyway?

Apparently not. You seem to be quite content to slag off Microsoft software, and telling us how much better Linux is for each and every situation, without having the faintest idea what it is or what it does. I'm not convinced that ignorance is a good basis for discussion.

This sort of attitude goes a long way towards explaining why Linux has never been a success with the populace at large. It is seen as something for geeks only - an impression that geeks do everything to encourage.

That's why, for example, I don't have any problem investing in Google products

I'm not sure that I would hold Google up as the epitome of sainthood!