Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business Microsoft Software Apache

Microsoft and Apache - What's the Angle? 433

A week ago, we discussed Microsoft's contribution to the Apache Foundation. Now, Bruce Perens has written an analysis "exploring the new relationship of Microsoft and the Apache project, how it works as an anti-Linux move on Microsoft's part, and what some of the Open Sourcers are going to do about having Microsoft as a rather untrustworthy partner." In particular, he notes: "...Microsoft can still influence how things go from here on. If they have to live with open source, the Apache project is Microsoft's preferred direction. Apache doesn't use the dreaded GPL and its enforced sharing of source-code. Instead, the Apache license is practically a no-strings gift, with a weak provision against patent lawsuits as its most relevant term. Microsoft can take Apache software and embrace and enhance, providing their own versions of the project's software with engineered incompatibility and no available source, just as they forced incompatibility into the Web by installing IE with every Windows upgrade."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft and Apache - What's the Angle?

Comments Filter:
  • Bruce Perens link (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01, 2008 @07:01PM (#24442287)

    Does that Bruce Perens link really need to be a mailto: link? His Slashdot user page might be more appropriate: http://slashdot.org/~Bruce+Perens/ [slashdot.org]

  • WCF and CXF (Score:3, Informative)

    by GWBasic ( 900357 ) <`slashdot' `at' `andrewrondeau.com'> on Friday August 01, 2008 @07:07PM (#24442369) Homepage

    I'm currently trying to get C# to talk to Java through SOAP. In C#, I'm using WCF (A Microsoft Framework), and in Java I'm using CXF (An Apache Framework.) It's very difficult.

  • Re:WCF and CXF (Score:3, Informative)

    by Shados ( 741919 ) on Friday August 01, 2008 @07:32PM (#24442587)

    WCF can easily make basic profile compliant services, and I've successfully integrated them in basically every imaginable environments that support it (and some that don't, via web service RPC), including Axis, also an apache project.

    So maybe the problem is CXF? Unless you're trying to do something very particular, it literally works out of the box with basically everything else.

  • by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) * <bruce@perens.com> on Friday August 01, 2008 @07:54PM (#24442813) Homepage Journal
    1. They want to talk to regulators as "insiders" in the Open Source community, asking for increases in software patenting that will actually block Open Source.
    2. Trying to become the dominant server for Apache Foundtion software is an anti-Linux play.
    3. There is a potential for embrace and enhance of Apache Foundation software.
    4. If they really want to be sincere community members, let's see them play by GPL rules, not by Apache's "anything goes" rules. What they're doing now is trying to seem members of Open Source without any of the obligation.
  • Re:Bruce Perens link (Score:2, Informative)

    by maxume ( 22995 ) on Friday August 01, 2008 @07:59PM (#24442871)

    He posts his phone number to the internet. Clearly, he is prepared to deal with incoming whatever.

    I suppose extremely dense readers would be helped by something that made it clear that bruce@perens.com probably had a website associated with it.

    Of course, if you check the link that you provided, you might find out who the submitter of the article was.

  • Re:Bruce Perens link (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) * <bruce@perens.com> on Friday August 01, 2008 @08:10PM (#24442957) Homepage Journal
    How about a phone number: 510-984-1055. It turns away calls when we'd be asleep.
  • by smoker2 ( 750216 ) on Friday August 01, 2008 @09:00PM (#24443295) Homepage Journal

    Usage of IIS has been increasing dramatically since March 2006. Usage of the Apache HTTP Server has declined significantly beginning in that same month

    Nice try, troll.
    According to the page you linked, Apaches usage has actually increased, as has IIS. Admittedly, Apaches market share has gone down, but that's not what you said. There are still 8.5 million more Apache servers (serving 24 million more sites according to Netcraft) than IIS.
    Totals for Active Servers Across All Domains [netcraft.com]
    June 2000 - June 2008

    Not to mention that as the largest single OS vendor, Microsofts market share is bound to grow, as their users start discovering the internet. Apache users are largely self selecting in this respect.

  • by Blakey Rat ( 99501 ) on Friday August 01, 2008 @09:29PM (#24443529)

    What DRM?

    The ONE article some guy wrote about how the DRM "makes his computer vaguely slower" that Slashdot has been posting back and forth the the last year?

    There is no DRM in Vista, other than the standard checks on downloaded patches. I've never been restricted by Vista from doing ANYTHING Slashdotters continually tell me Vista restricts me from doing. It's bullshit, it's an urban legend, and stop spreading it.

  • Re:So... (Score:4, Informative)

    by bsDaemon ( 87307 ) on Friday August 01, 2008 @09:36PM (#24443587)

    that's a BSDaemon, thank you very much...

  • by speedtux ( 1307149 ) on Friday August 01, 2008 @10:46PM (#24444159)

    Usage of IIS has been increasing dramatically since March 2006. Usage of the Apache HTTP Server has declined significantly beginning in that same month.

    Those numbers were mainly due to changes in parked domains, nothing real.

  • Re:Bruce Perens link (Score:2, Informative)

    by BlueCollarCamel ( 884092 ) on Saturday August 02, 2008 @01:16AM (#24445053) Homepage

    Are you familiar with the assholes from /b/ and such?

  • Re:Anti-Linux? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) * <bruce@perens.com> on Saturday August 02, 2008 @02:08AM (#24445309) Homepage Journal

    There is nothing in the GPL which requires me to give my changes to random people who i have not given the binaries to.

    Actually you are wrong about that. GPL 2 section 3(b) says "any third party". So, yes, there is something in the GPL that says you do have to give code to random people.

    You don't have to follow 3(b) if you follow 3(a). But you are not allowed to prevent any of the people you give source code under 3(a) from giving it to anyone they like.

  • by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) * <bruce@perens.com> on Saturday August 02, 2008 @02:18AM (#24445383) Homepage Journal
    Here [windowsvistablog.com] is Microsoft's own explanation of how their DRM allows content to turn off capabilities of your computer.

    What I hear about - and only hear about because I haven't had to touch a Vista machine - is that people have their video resolution handicapped, and that the latest service pack messes up boot authorization if you have dual boot. Somebody who actually has to touch Vista could tell you much more.

  • Re:serious (Score:3, Informative)

    by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) * <bruce@perens.com> on Saturday August 02, 2008 @03:13AM (#24445649) Homepage Journal
    I think you are confusing Linux, which is a kernel under the GPL, and the distribution usability issue, which relates to programs that are not necessarily under the GPL. Kernels don't have much to do with usability problems. That's the desktop UI software. GNOME is LGPL rather than GPL for its libraries. Qt is GPL for its libraries because they use dual-licensing for revenue.

    Distributions do not run the two desktop projects, they do collaborate on them.

  • Re:Relief (Score:2, Informative)

    by glitch23 ( 557124 ) on Saturday August 02, 2008 @03:26AM (#24445697)

    Err no. MS doesn't usually make their code publicly available. I wonder where you saw it..

    MS made some of their Windows code available to MSDN members a while back under a specific license.

  • Re:Anti-Linux? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) on Saturday August 02, 2008 @06:38AM (#24446325)
    You seem to be talking about Open Source as one single entity - it isn't, and it never will be. What Apache are doing is nothing more than ensuring they can increase their own market share by having their products run well on all platforms. Whats wrong with that?

    Should Apache 'take one for the "team"'? No.
  • by SEE ( 7681 ) on Saturday August 02, 2008 @11:52AM (#24448053) Homepage

    System Libraries (I use the capitals to specifically indicate a reference to the capitalized term in the GPL 3) don't have to implement a Standard Interface. They can instead serve as the interface to allow the use of the work with a Major Component. Which simply means Microsoft would have to make the non-Free extension code part of or highly dependent on code in a Major Component, called via a System Library.

    As long as the GPL allows covered software to be run on non-Free platforms, the owners of the non-Free platforms will be able to embrace and extend the GPL software with non-Free code. You can set up some hoops, if you like, but they can always tilt the platform to serve as a ramp through the hoops.

  • by Foofoobar ( 318279 ) on Saturday August 02, 2008 @05:53PM (#24450955)

    4. Usage of IIS has been increasing dramatically since March 2006. Usage of the Apache HTTP Server has declined significantly beginning in that same month. Netcraft provides these statistics here: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2008/06/22/june_2008_web_server_survey.html [netcraft.com]

    As Mark Twain said 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.' These stats are INCREDIBLY slanted as Microsoft paid several domain parkers to move to IIS thus making it look like alot of people use IIS when in fact they do not. Also, they forked their stats: Googles web server is actually a custom build of Apache (not for resale), lighttpd is a custom build of apache as well. Add these stats back in, take into consideration that Microsoft paid off domain parkers and you actually get a stat more like this [securityspace.com].

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...