The Old Joel on Software Forum: Part 4 (of 5) - Microsoft admits that the OSS community is right

Microsoft admits that the OSS community is right

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/36691.html

so there are real advantages in opening up the source to outside developers? does this mean that OSS developers have been right about the advantages in doing so all along?

(note, Im talking about open sourcing the code, not giving away the license to use it for free...)

yep..kind of a troll, but Im interested in feedback as well
Wednesday, March 31, 2004

No one, not even Microsoft, can dispute the benefit of open source's ability to locate and fix bugs and/or improve code performance or stability. More minds can do this better than just the 5 or 6 people on the team at the farm.

What they will never to is go GPL, which would create Windows fragments and splinters. They want to ensure that stupid game you bought in 97 still works on XP.

They will also never allow their UI to go to the public, which is an admitted problem in open source development.

Unfortunately for MS, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. Look soon for many bashing statements.

Conspiracy Anti-Theorist
Wednesday, March 31, 2004

More peer review is always a good thing, assuming:

(1) The people who look at the code actually know WTF they're looking at.

(2) Make sure the people looking at it are under NDA, and you can TRUST them to acutally obey the terms of the NDA.

(3) Changes to the code are tightly controlled.

(4) Every change is regression tested to make sure that old software doesn't break.

(5) When a serious problem is found in the code (securty hole), there is a team that can respond to the problem quckly and patch the hole.

I don't think Microsoft has ever said that more peer review is a bad thing. However, they are opposed to the idea of throwing their code on the web for any moron to download and change. And they are religiously opposed to the GPL.

As always, take anything you find on the Register with a huge grain of salt. Most of their writers need a serious education. They may link to good sources, but they sure know how to distort truth (especially when MS is involved).

Myron A. Semack
Wednesday, March 31, 2004

Sounds like marketing to me. Provide the source code to widgets 50 to 56 and the open sourcers will go delirious.

Really, how would disclosing the source code provide any better scrutiny than that by 2,000 experts inside Microsoft?

Wednesday, March 31, 2004

> take anything you find on the Register with a huge grain of salt.

I always thought it was mainly a humor site, I never take anything there seriously.

Isn't that where BOFH is archived?

Snotnose
Wednesday, March 31, 2004

"I always thought it was mainly a humor site"

except for what TCG writes. He ain't funny at all, just silly.

I know I know, delete this sorry and I won't transgress again!

i like i
Thursday, April 1, 2004

Thomas C Greene? *shudders* that guy makes my blood boil

senkwe chanda
Thursday, April 1, 2004

>>"No one, not even Microsoft, can dispute the benefit of open source's ability to locate and fix bugs and/or improve code performance or stability"

I dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy, but I'm tired of the hypocricy.

Microsoft frequently releases fixes for its programs. Every time they do this they are criticized and pointed to as an example of the evils of proprietary closed source software.

But every time an open source program releases a patch or fix, it is praised as another shining example of how wonderful open source is.

My Cousin Vinniwashtharam
Thursday, April 1, 2004

>>>But every time an open source program releases a patch or fix, it is praised as another shining example of how wonderful open source is.

By whom?

Eric Debois
Thursday, April 1, 2004

I'd like you to keep in mind what the current date is. While technically the date on the article is 31/03/2004, most people wouldn't be reading it until 01/04/2004.

Just a thought.

Clay Dowling
Thursday, April 1, 2004