Is all this Free code giving, ruining our Industry? 4

[MrGreed]

I find it helpful when I am helped by a fellow programmer with a coding question. I also find it helpful when I'm out searching for a way of coding something and find it.

But at the sametime I question whether all this "Free Code" out on the internet is a benefit or a ball an chain to the "IT" industry.

I know of and meet to many non "IT" individuals that think that they can program the "internet" because of all this free code and the same applies to buisness managers that consistantly hire the wrong people for the job.

What do you think? "did you just say Minkey?, yes that's what I said."

MrGreed

 

[strongm]

>however the similarities between MacOS and Windows are much more pronouced than those between the XEROX system and the Mac

If you actually read what I said, instead of continuing to grind your axe, you would see that I agreed that MS copied the Lisa and the Mac, whilst merely pointing out that Apple took a number (but by no means all) of their interface ideas from Altos/Star (I probably went a bit far in using the word 'much').

>Windblows DOES use some FreeBSD code

Never said it didn't. I merely disagree with the original assertion that "A great deal of the Windows NT code is based on Free BSD code"

I'd be interested to hear your views on Apple's use of FreeBSD in OS X...

>Read history of Javascript

I just ran out of energy breaking down your various assertions, and decided to go with an easy option. However...

I'm aware of the history of Javascript, and would point out that the short, sanitised version you reference misses out several important and salient facts - namely that prior to ECMA, Netscape and Sun jointly released Javascript (with Sun getting ownership of the trademark) as an open, cross-platform object scripting language, freely available to the entire Internet community (or at least claimed it would be; took them almost a year before they published the JavaScript reference information, which is one of the main reasons why MS's JScript is not an exact Javascript clone; they didn't have the spec to work from). A large number of companies announced support for it, including DEC, Novell, HP, Oracle, Borland, Symantec, SCO, oh - and Microsoft. Microsoft would have been mad not to port a version, since at that time they needed to maintain a fair degree of compatibility with the Netscape browsers.

The history also misses out the fact that Sun were initially rather unhappy with the idea of Livescript. Only after some 'discussion' with Netscape did Sun endorse the product.

>The point I am making is that MS doesn't truly innovate

Well, I'm not going to argue with you there.

 

[xutopia]

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-530081.html

talks about the use of Open Source software at hotmail where MS finally had to admit that they were using OSS two days after they had told the world that they weren't.

Another article I cannot find did mention some bugs TCP/IP buts in one of MS's OS that were exactly the same as one found in BSD. MS of course denies that it ever copied any OSS cause that would be saying that it is superior to code they can come up with.

Apple does use OSS. It's called Darwin and it's one of the best OS out there. Apple hired people from the OSS community to develop Darwin which is given back in turn to the community.

The only thing MS gives back to the BSD group is .NET related stuff and we all know who's to gain from that.

Sorry if i sound all bitter about this. I just hate going on dell.com and being forced to buy a licence of Windows and Office to get a decent laptop. Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

Haran

 

[AIXSPadmin]

Everyone knows that OS X uses BSD code. They have ackowledged it. The problem is that MS uses code and doesn't acknowledge it. Look at a log of DLLs and EXEs and you will see a number of references to the University of California. Hmmm, wonder what was developed at UC-Berkeley?
The WinBlows ftp program seems to be straight from BSD code. I am sure MS would like to buy BSD or Linux if they could so they could eliminate the competition. WinBlows just is not a good product, and you would think with $5 Billion/year in R&D it would be halfway decent.

 

[AIXSPadmin]

Read the article from this link about OSs using BSD code.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,555440,00.asp

 

[strongm]

xutopia

>mention some bugs TCP/IP buts in one of MS's OS that were exactly the same as one found in BSD.

Quite so. Microsoft's TCP/IP stack, in particular Winsock, is based on the BSD stack. As is almost everybodies. They've never hidden this fact - although they don't go around specifically publicising it. The following is a direct quote from "Windows Sockets,An Open Interface for Network Programming under Microsoft Windows" the Microsoft documentation from the first decent release of Winsock, version 1.1, in 1993:

"The Windows Sockets specification defines a network programming interface for Microsoft Windows which is based on the "socket" paradigm popularized in the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) from the University of California at Berkeley."

This doesn't look like Microsoft "denying" anything at all to me.

Note that you've now moved the goalposts twice:

from

[tt]1. "a great deal of the Windows NT code is based on Free BSD code"[/tt]

which is what I disagree with, to

[tt]2. "Today's XP (NT5) has lots of code based on OpenBSD and FreeBSD"[/tt]

which I also disagree with, but at least has the saving grace of no longer suggesting that NT is actually based on FreeBSD, to

[tt]3. "TCP/IP bu[g]s in one of MS's OS that were exactly the same as one found in BSD"[/tt]

Which is much closer to reality, although you still manage to read something more sinister as being afoot than is the actual case.

> I just hate going on dell.com and being forced to buy a licence of Windows and Office to get a decent laptop.

I quite agree. Microsoft's practices in this area leave a lot to be desired.

 

[xutopia]

strongm,

So maybe I can't prove my assertions. MS doesn't show their source code so we'll never know who is right.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/23348.html

This is how MS says oops after saying that Hotmail ran on Windows and not Unix anymore.

If you ask me the way they make hotmail run on windows was to incorporate BSD code into their OS.

I guess we'll never know for sure. But hey MS does use OSS yet they say it is the worst virus ever. Go figure. They take and never give back. Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

Haran

 

[Grenage]

Well, I can't completely slate MS products since 2k, xp and a good few of their programs have been very good, stable, user friendly.

There is nothing wrong with buying a product and improving it rather than creating your own, it's a good business move.

That said I am not a great fan of microsoft simply because your average joe has little choice but to use it, and the prices go up and up and up - and we gain nothing more.

When it comes to paying stupid amounts of money for an operating system that you have little choice but to use, and being flooded with buggy VB programs - or using a free OS that anyone can work on I know what I'd choose.

 

[xutopia]

It's true my beef with Open Source is that it isn't usable. Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

Haran

 

[strongm]

Boy...

>This is how MS says oops after saying that Hotmail ran on Windows and not Unix anymore

That's not what the article says. It's a grudging admission from MS that they haven't figured out how to implement the necessary infrastructure on their own OS. I've no gripes with that. Doesn't surprise me at all. And one suspects that they may never achieve it.

>If you ask me the way they make hotmail run on windows was to incorporate BSD code into their OS.

An interesting theory. With several flaws that I just can't be bothered to address (not least of which is the idea that to port what is essentially 'just' a website from one OS to another requires parts of the target OS to be rewritten to include parts of the source OS)


However, let's agree to disagree on this point: you think MS are trying to turn NT/XP into FreeBSD without telling anyone and that most of it is already, and I don't.

I do agree that MS are not exactly innovative in most of their mainstream stuff, I do agree that their licencing policies are rubbish, and I acknowledge that their marketing-driven approach often gets them into trouble when they forced to backtrack (e.g. what Hotmail runs on), and I agree that they often blunder around like a bull in a china shop.

 

[shadyness]

To kind of speak to the original topic, I would suggest that code sharing on the internet is the same as purchasing a book. My desk is cluttered with ASP, PERL, Excel, VB, Access, SQL, JS, JAVA, BLAH-BLAH, Teach Yourself This or That, and how many O'Reilly animals are there? Each one is crammed with code examples that I have utilized in many an original product. The base line is, whatever you need to do, has been done and maybe better than you could do it (unless you've recently created an independant language). For those of you who can remember, I belive Yahoo used to run its own ASP/JSP type langauage following its own exclusive protocols. Turnover rates and software limitations made them ditch that, I believe, whereas developers promptly began seeing what the net was doing and trying to simply improve upon what was done. Ever heard the expression that there exists nothing new under the sun? In terms of creating new scripts, its been done before. If an employer hires someone who doesn't possess a decent understanding of developing client-side applications and server-side applications then they hired someone who doesn't even know their back-side from their front. Some people say they are afraid of heights. With me its table widths.

 

[palbano]

strongm,

>> Good God! You've got a real M$ axe to grind, haven't you?

Thank you… Thank you…. Thank you….

I knew most of that myself but could never have backed it up with the facts as you did. I get so tired of the endless stream of cr@p online.

So thank you very much for taking the time to post all the facts!

By way of contrast you here very little from M$. I even had lunch once with a M$ dude and asked him why they don't ever respond to some of these baseless allegations. He said… well I don't remember what he said but basically he was bored by it.

By the way did I say THANK YOU!

-pete

 

[Zantor]

Just a correction in to an earlier post. I said that NT was based to a large extent on Free BSD. I meant to say BSD, which has been around since the 70's. It was free, but they didn't start calling it Free BSD until the 90's.

 

[Zantor]

Back when NT was first released it was very obvious that it was a Unix flavour. In fact it was based on Mica, a project started by DEC in the late 80's. They shelved the project and their chief architect went to work for MS. Soon after NT was born. If you watched the early NT boot it looked a lot like Unix, and even identified itself as Mica at various points.
When I mentioned that NT was based on BSD unix in an earlier post it was just to support the argument that free software was a good idea, not to cast MS in a bad light.
Smart programmers will reuse good code. Free software enables that to happen on a grand scale.

 

[Tarwn]

"Good writers borrow, Great writers steal", E.B. White?

There is no such things as free code or everything is free code it depends on your viewpoint.
At some point a group of people sat down and started creating a compiler. They decided what core functions to include, how the variables would be referenced, the format of a string concatenation and a boolean if statement.
Now, someone had to write the first program to prove the thing actually worked, someone had to test out all of the functions, someone had to write the first book on how to use their brand spanking new language. So in essence every core elemt of the language has already been used and published.

Ok, so is the free code on the internet ruining the trade? I would have to think not. First there are a great deal of books down at the bookstore if I need to look something up. So without the internet I would basically be using the books as reference material. I think, in fact, that the internet is probably opening the trade up more. Instead of everyone staying inside the same coding guidelines that are outlined in the books and slowly learning new ones as people stumble upon them and write a book, the entire process evolves at a much faster pace over the internet, with reference sites that can be differant each time you look and technical forums where your words are shared with thousands instead of just your coworkers.
Just my opinion, but I think the free code on the internet is a positive thing for the trade, how people use it, on the other hand, is another story.

I had a couple comments about the conversation earlier, but will keep it brief, I am in no way trying to start an argument, just attempting to make some salient points:

Linux does make a bit of money but not nearly as much as MS. They sell the CDs on which they have the copies of their software. They also sell support and documentation. This is how they make money. - Umm, Linux who?

The Internet itself is based on a Free standard, TCP/IP - Again, hmmm... free standards?
I don't see anyone getting royalties from xml, html, css, IEEE 802 communications protocols, IEEE 1394, how about several authentication methods (IEEE 1363?)....
My point is that standards are always free, and by definition are made for people to freely use them

Joe's code spits out an error code before breaking in a specific way, my code spits out an error code before breaking in a similar fashion. Who cheated off who? This is an assumption that has to little data to solely decide upon (BSD and MS "similar errors" content above)


We are payed for our vocabulary skills: technical writing, coding against strict vocabularies, boolean true/false values instead of trinary yes/maybe/no values. Just a thought.

-Tarwn


--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
This space has nothing in it, it's all ni your imagination

 

[Tarwn]

Hmm, looking through some of the posted articles i see their is actual proof behind the assertation that Windows uses BSD (I still disagree that the argument I pointed out above could be considered proof). those MS bastards, for using a free product...
"virtually every computer operating system we use today --including Microsoft Windows, Microsoft NT/2000/XP, OS/2, Linux, and every commercial version of UNIX -- contains at least some BSD code"

Hm, guess it wasn't just windows.

And another assertation above: "I am sure MS would like to buy BSD or Linux..."

BSD and Linux are both non-saleable, making this point...pointless.

I'm sorry I had to add to the off-topic discussion, I'm not a fanatic about any one system, i just like good presentation of facts and dislike mis-representations. I apologize for anything that may come off as argumentary, I've had to much coffee today --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
This space has nothing in it, it's all ni your imagination

 

[jad]

Truth (as i see it) about Open Source ...

if you are running a system like Intel Solaris (which i am) then you have a problem getting hold of applications to do certain jobs, except in the opensource community.

As nice as it would be to go for an application that has been put through it's paces to a very heavy degree by full time paid professionals, we run samba, apache, squid, ghostscript, html2ps and a whole host of other much smaller programs. we almost have to in order to get things working.

yes it would be possible to get hold of the full adobe software for solaris intel, maybe, but it is apparently not as stable as Ghostscript and is not as fast.
Yes it would be possible to get a netscape server to run our web applications, but it doesn't support the plugins needed to get our Oracle server connected via HTML (which by the way oracle provide a copy of even though it's roots are opensource).
Yes it would be nice to run Suns PClink software (sparc only)
Yes we could run netscapes proxy server (which is slow, awkward and costly, plus less configurable)
Yes we could probably find an application that converts html into Postscript that can be run from a command prompt

but they aren't better, just different.

 

[strongm]

Zantor,

Mica was based on VMS, not Unix.

 

[strongm]

>I meant to say BSD, which has been around since the 70's. It was free, but they didn't start calling it Free BSD until the 90's.

Well, the first BSD release was in 1977, so I'd prefer it if you said 'late 70s'. And it wasn't free. Up until 1989 you had to pay AT&T a source licence fee, since there was no binary-only release and the code was based on Bell's 32/V, a Vax port of Bell's Unix. In summer 1989, the (TCP/IP) networking code was split out of the main release (the networking code was not based on anything in 32/V, which is why it could be split out) as Networking Release 1. This was the first freely-redistributable code from Berkeley. The greatly expanded Network Release 2 (precursor to NetBSD, FreeBSD et al), including most (but not all) of the kernel and familiar Unix tools and utilities, came out in 1991. NR2 was probably the first good example of how free code and the user community can be a 'good thing', since most of the tools and utilities were written from scratch by the Unix community; only the kernel elements were written by Berkely.

 

[jad]

strongm, you get a star for knowing your stuff

 

[Zantor]

Actually Unix was originally free. The US anti-trust laws of the time prevented a phone company from making money selling Operating systems. When the "monopoly" was broken up (Baby Bells etc), this no longer applied and AT&T reclaimed what was theirs and started charging for it. Also, one should not confuse the BSD code with the AT&T code. The BSD code was generally either improved versions of what was distibuted with the AT&T Unix, or virgin code designed to fill perceived gaps in the AT&T distribution.
The BSD code was always free because of the fact that the research money came from public funds.