|
|
| Microsoft emails Blender |
 |
|
Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 12:52 PM EDT
|
Microsoft has just approached the Blender guys, and I would assume have or will approach other FOSS projects since we learn that Microsoft has assigned a guy to work with Open Source projects, with a request for information on how to make Blender run better on Windows. Here's part of what Microsoft emailed to Blender:
With respect to Blender, what can you tell me about your community/user
feedback that you have heard regarding file formats? Specifically,
Microsoft is slowly shifting toward a more open standards based
approach to its file formats. The ISO standard Office Open XML is an
example of the direction we are moving towards.
A good user experience of Blender on Windows is good for your
project/community and good for Microsoft. What we are trying to
understand is what file formats, which are not open or not fully open,
are impeding the optimal experience with your community. OOXML is an example of openness? They're kidding, right?
While on the surface, one might think this is an example of greater openness on Microsoft's part, I thought it would be probably a good time to point out Microsoft's competitive strategy against Linux and FOSS. I think this is an example of its announced strategy to "outsmart Linux", as Ballmer put it, using "openness" -- a Brand X, tilted version of it -- to do it.
Here's the overarching strategy Ballmer mentioned recently: I would love to see all Open Source innovation happen on top of Windows. So we've done a lot to encourage, for example, the team building, PHP, the team building, many of the other Open Source components, I'd love to see those sorts of innovations proceed very successfully on top of Windows.
Because our battle is not sort of business model to business model. Our battle is product to product, Windows versus Linux, Office versus OpenOffice. Get it? They view everything as a battle. "All Open Source innovation" means to him, I gather, that Windows runs the applications so well, the GNU/Linux operating system dies off. Who needs it?
That's how they think, because they don't grasp any purpose to freedom for the code or for the end user. If you do, please watch out. The OOXML saga stands as a perfect example of how Microsoft plays to win, by hook or by crook. It is a "standard" that only Microsoft can fully use. That's not openness to me. Why don't they help the OpenOffice.org guys by telling them how to render Windows Office 2007 documents properly? Really. If openness is the goal, how about it, Microsoft? I know. I jest. Instead, Microsoft would like FOSS developers to cross over to Microsoft's eternally tilted playing field and lose its competitive advantage. They want Open Source applications to run better on Windows with the purpose of battling against GNU/Linux and FOSS more successfully. Want to help them?
I know. It's complex. But unless Microsoft also lets FOSS run Microsoft applications on Linux equally well as FOSS apps on Windows, it's not actually interoperability or openness, is it? It's a Microsoft advantage. "Ha ha, Linux, we outsmarted you," I can imagine them saying. Microsoft's idea of interoperability is that it runs everything just great, your stuff and theirs, and you can't. You can run your stuff great and their stuff in a hobbled and imperfect fashion that leads the ill-informed to conclude that Microsoft is "better".
There are more than just technical issues to think through, in other words. I'm just saying consider the entire picture. Microsoft is. Here's where, in 2002, Ballmer said Microsoft would outsmart Linux, using increased 'openness' as part of that plan.
The bottom line is this: if Microsoft wants interoperability, all it has to do is follow true standards, and by that I mean ones that don't allow proprietary extensions the way OOXML does, and open up their APIs so everyone is on the same page. Their goal, however, isn't true interoperability. It's to have Windows do everything, including running Linux applications, better than anyone else. Why should you settle for Brand X "interoperability"?
They will very likely also use such reaching out to projects in their defense before the EU Commission, so unless you wish to be used that way, think deeply about your response. I understand that there is a very fine line to be drawn, but while Microsoft says it will "outsmart Linux", I don't believe that is possible if you stay alert. Most of the brainiacs, in my experience, are here, not there. But because there is no central management to plan and react to their competitive strategies, they might be successful in their overarching aim to destroy Linux and FOSS, if no one thinks these types of issues through carefully. Happily, Blender is GPL'd, but so is Linux, and we saw how Novell got snookered. It's natural to want your applications to run better on all operating systems. But if the end result is the Extinguishing of FOSS as we know it, what have you done?
You will likely find the responses on the Blender list of interest, as you follow the thread. Here's the very first comment: I would not touch that with a barge pole. MS XML is an example that
they are not moving on that issue, or they would support ODF, not
using dirty tactics to force an half-backed non open standard.
They have an history to use one OSS group against another too.
Blender is in a position where we do not depend on any MS backed
format, so I think we should be very careful to stay neutral in those
areas. And the next: Personally I don't see why specific attention should be given to
proprietary Microsoft file formats. If they continue to avoid truly open
standards and their own file formats provide a sub-optimal experience
for Windows users, then it is not the open source community that has a
problem imho.
I don't see Microsoft making it easy for Mac, Sun, Linux etc users to
use their "file formats, which are not open or not fully open". Any
multi platform application which has support for Windows specific file
formats is going to end up with a fragmented community as data then
becomes platform specific even if the application isn't.
Do we want to help Microsoft lock more users data to their platform, or
do we want to encourage Microsoft to truly move towards open standards?
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 01:00 PM EDT |
| It looks like a big wooden horse to me. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Will they fall for it? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 01:13 PM EDT
- Will they fall for it? - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 02:27 PM EDT
- Please also include in that list any Microsoft files that you might have trouble with. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 02:35 PM EDT
- Not When M$ Is So Honest - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 02:57 PM EDT
- Will they fall for it? - Authored by: lukep on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 04:56 PM EDT
- Will they fall for it? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 11:53 PM EDT
- Who are they trying to fool? - Authored by: AlanGriffiths on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 03:17 AM EDT
- Will they fall for it? - Authored by: bb5ch39t on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 08:50 AM EDT
- I believe Bruce Campbell put it best... - Authored by: AHGrayLensman on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 04:08 PM EDT
- Don't you fall for it. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 03:14 PM EDT
- Will they fall for it? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 04:49 PM EDT
- Will they fall for it? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 15 2008 @ 09:34 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: ankylosaurus on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 01:03 PM EDT |
Please use a meaningful title, such as "mitsake -> mistake".
---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- team building - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 01:16 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Holocene Epoch on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 01:03 PM EDT |
| You know what goes here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Holocene Epoch on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 01:05 PM EDT |
Please use the article name in the title line. And remember the rules for
clickies[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 01:11 PM EDT |
I wonder, How OOXML is related to Blender, and why a Blender developer wants to
know more about OOXML.
Maybe i'm ignorant, but this is really mind boggling for me.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 01:22 PM EDT |
I have no doubt that Microsoft really wants to see Open Source projects target
running on Windows. Otherwise they've got a lot of work to do trying to keep
up.
Unfortunately for them, all the things they've done to hinder commercial
competition also impedes Open Source projects. It's also created the disaster
which is called Vista.
Nice to see them starting to realize they're getting just what they deserve :-)
Sadly I doubt that they're anywhere close to "playing well with
others", but if the Blender developers ask for information about file
formats and a covenant not to sue over any relevant patents they might begin to
consider behaving better.
rhb[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bbaston on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 01:33 PM EDT |
Just cut and past, guys and gals:
Yes, Microsoft, we have a format
problem which interferes with interoperability of our GPL project with your
operating system. However, the solution is simple. Just send us the full format
specifications for all your products - and we'll work it out on this end.
If
you like, please include an "all patents are waivered" statement - but that is
optional as we can work around or invalidate any patents you might claim
anyway.
PS - don't forget to forward every change to your format
specifications too.
Yours truly,
Open Source Project
Manager
---
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 01:41 PM EDT |
That's surely the answer needed. Don't cripple it and hang it over DirectX, use
OpenGL.
A 3D application never uses the widget/look'nfeel of the host OS because any 3D
application is already having to work against a multi-dimensional problem space
with 2D output and 2D (or 1D) inputs.
So, MS, if you want Blender to work better on Windows, use OpenGL.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 01:54 PM EDT |
http://elitemrp.net/iat/
knock your selves out ;)
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c252/cholizo/its-a-trap.gif
---
Phorm is highly intrusive - it's like the P.O. opening all my letters to see
what I'm interested in, merely so that I can be sent a better class of junk
mail.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: vruz on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 01:55 PM EDT |
Blender runs just fine on Windows, and has been doing so for years without
Microsoft's "help".
One should ask, what's in it for Microsoft ?
The only way Microsoft can help is by letting us be, respect our culture, our
copyrights.
Keep the change.
Thanks, but no, thanks.
And a honest suggestion to Microsoft: focus on your products and do something
about the lame state of your company and the awful treatment you give to your
customers.
We'll be alright.
---
--- the vruz[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 02:14 PM EDT |
| Hey people, you should all read this Wikipedia article on Cartels.
Specially the European Union part. Whoever has the ability to talk to the right
people at the European Union this is the time to do it.
It starts
with:
The EU's competition law explicitly forbids cartels and
related practices in its article 81 of the Treaty of
Rome.
1. The following shall be prohibited as
incompatible with the common market: all agreements between undertakings,
decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may
affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the
prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market,
and in particular those which:
(a) directly or indirectly
fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;
(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or
investment;
(c) share markets or sources of
supply;
(d) apply dissimilar conditions to
equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a
competitive disadvantage;
(e) make the conclusion of
contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary
obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no
connection with the subject of such contracts.
In
one way they hope to get out of paying the fine:
Microsoft Appeals €899M Fine
On the other:
Microsoft to Limit Capabilities of Cheap
Laptops
Microsoft plans to offer PC makers steep discounts
on Windows XP Home Edition to encourage them to use that OS instead of Linux on
ultra low-cost PCs (ULPCs). To be eligible, however, the PC vendors that
make ULPCs must limit screen sizes to 10.2 inches and hard drives to 80G bytes,
and they cannot offer touch-screen PCs.
The program is outlined in
confidential documents that Microsoft sent to PC makers last month, and which
were obtained by IDG News Service....
Microsoft hopes to secure its place in
the ULPC market and reduce the use of Linux, according to an official at one PC
maker, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to discuss
the program.
"[Low-cost PC makers] have made some good inroads with
open-source, and Microsoft wants to put a stop to it," the official
said.
Clearly, instead of dropping the fines, the European Union
should start thinking on others ways to punish Microsoft for their
anti-competitive behaviour.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 02:15 PM EDT |
| Ask them to document and open source tools to read/write the FBX file
format.
FBX is the 3D file format of choice of Microsoft and Autodesk, and
as far as I know the tools are closed source, which hinders free developers. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 02:19 PM EDT |
The brutal reply - better MS support for KDE4 or GTK2.
I'm not sure if that is what MS had in mind though.
_[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 02:34 PM EDT |
Because our battle is not sort of business model to business
model. Our battle is product to product, Windows versus Linux, Office versus
OpenOffice.
Which makes me wonder right off why
Microsoft even cares about Blender. Microsoft is not in the 3D content
production business. "Product to product", indeed. What's really on your mind,
Mr. Ballmer?
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." --
Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 02:45 PM EDT |
How much would it cost Microsoft to employ the open
software community? MS's people are too busy trying
to please the boss to write decent apps. FOSS developers
are only trying to please their users.
Look at Microsoft's most recent failures:
-- Vista
-- OOXML
-- XP SP3
All of them are essentially unusable. Why would you entrust
your business to these people?
Maybe I'm a little too harsh on Microsoft's code writers. Maybe
they do have what it takes. But Ballmer and Gates won't let
them.
Microsoft's comments are aimed at governments, not their own
customers. Microsoft can't win new customers, so it will have
to bribe governments to force their citizens to use Microsoft.
My frame of reference for Microsoft are the U.S. automakers.
Toyota, Nissan and the German automakers captured U.S.
customers with quality, while U.S. quality declined.
Microsoft is following the same path as U.S. automakers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 03:22 PM EDT |
Am I the only one who looked at the headline and wondered why Microsoft was
e-mailing a character from Futurama?
...and then deciding that considering the somewhat nebulous morality of
Blender's character on that show, considering it to be entirely appropriate to
be offering him Ballmer's position...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- typo? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 05:52 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 03:33 PM EDT |
We're all familiar with "FUD" and "Embrace, Extend,
Extinguish" as descriptive names for MS's proven
strategies (as in proven to work, and proven that they do
it).
But this needs a new name. The old ones don't quite fit,
and their names lack punch.
I suggest "Lulu" or "Lulu Lock": Lure, Lull, Lock.
You can see them doing it all over the landscape lately,
and it isn't pretty.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 03:34 PM EDT |
Maybe they should suggest to Microsoft to buy Autodesk to really open Autodesk
format, the later being (supposedly) one of the huge barriers of adoption of
Free Software in CAD.
- H[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 03:34 PM EDT |
"I would love to see all Open Source innovation happen on top of Windows.
"
But I thought that OSS never innovated. We just copy you. Isnt that what you
said in the past? The best thing we can do to Microsoft is just ignore them.
Exclude them from the market.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gdeinsta on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 04:43 PM EDT |
Ever noticed that packaged bread companies never advertise that their product
is "fresh"? That's because "fresh" means made this morning. So they advertise
"freshness", which means precisely that their bread is not
fresh.
So too with "open" and "openness".
BTW this is what Orwell
meant by doublespeak. He had worked as a copy writer, so he knew all about
it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: joef on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 04:47 PM EDT |
| If Microsoft really wants FOSS applications to work on their platforms,
it's quite simple. All they have to do is top provide the resources and
authority for their own employees to work on the projects. These individuals
simply join the projects and start contributing. They contribute on the same
basis as other contributors, and under the same license. Are there any
projects that would deny their participation under these groundrules? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mikeprotts on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 05:14 PM EDT |
Classic tactics, but poor strategy.
Divide and conquer relies on the opponent having the same goals, i.e. vanquish
the opposition. For a battle you may pick up some easy wins, but the FOSS
vision doesn't have a winner/loser mentality. Every one wins with FOSS, and
every one loses without, so the long term will favour FOSS, even if there are
some casualties on the way. Think of vi vs emacs, KDE vs gnome. There is no
loser, as the best is shared, and the preferences are kept. With proprietary
the commercially viable is kept, the best and the preferences are irellivant.
Accepting that there is a choice is so difficult for some companies, but choice
and freedom are always the winners in the end. It may be a painful path but it
is the one that prevails.
If you want to change a system you have to become part of the system, and with
FOSS becoming part of the system means you accept it, so changes can only be for
the good. That is where non FOSS companies can't cope, so are doomed to
failure.
Cheers
Mike[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TiddlyPom on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 06:18 PM EDT |
I know it hardly need to be said here but there are so many people who do trust
Microsoft. I did for a number of years and when I discovered how devious they
are it opened my eyes. I saw this in a small way when I worked with a team
producing an intra-net application for banks and building societies for booking
appointments (with searches across multiple branches).
We started with
a clean slate and could have used either Java or (as it was then) the recently
released C# .NET (1.0). Microsoft claimed that they would help fund the
development of the new system *if* it was written in C# rather than Java. Most
of the banks used Java so in many ways this would have been lower risk although
my colleagues had been using VB6 in the previous project so using Microsoft
products was also seen as a lower risk. Inevitably we used C# for ASPX pages
rather than Java Servlet Pages (although in hindsight I do not think that JSP
would have been any harder than ASPX and the language itself is almost
identical). Of course the funding never materialized and I expect that it never
would have. The application was pretty successful in its own field but rather
specialized so had no mass market appeal. I suspect that Microsoft would have
tried to buy it out if it had had more mass market appeal. As the more open
source/cross platform friendly member of the team, I felt betrayed and rather
angry. Microsoft would (of course) just chalk this up as another victory for
them.
I am (as I type) in the process of setting up my Father's PC as
dual boot between Windows XP and 64 bit Ubuntu and I swear this will be the last
Windows PC I build. If this was not for my Father then I would have refused to
load any Microsoft operating systems (and indeed I did try and persuade him to
make this Ubuntu-only). These days I find myself hating Microsoft with every
fiber of my being simply because of what they do. They will do *anything*
(however underhanded or devious) to remain in power (by which I mean retain
market share) and the Blender team should *never* trust them no matter how meek
and gracious they might seem.
---
Open Source Software - Unpicking
the Microsoft monopoly piece-by-piece. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Toon Moene on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 06:27 PM EDT |
OK, lets have a vote.
How many of you read this as:
Microsoft email blunder.
(in the sense that a ... hmmm how will I put this ... sensitive e-mail in the
Sarbany-Ox sense was accidentily discovered during one of the many lawsuits MS
is involved in).
---
Toon Moene (A GNU Fortran maintainer and physicist at large)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 06:38 PM EDT |
I just wanted to comment on the first bit of text quoted, I read it as what new
file formats can we rush to patent to hamper your development. I did actually
laugh out loud when I read the bit about OOXML been giving' as an example of
increased interest in open standards.
What I like about reading tech news over the last few years is that Microsoft
doesn't get that increasingly 'people don't care' what they do,
we're finding alternatives. (maybe slowly but very steadily).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 06:54 PM EDT |
If it isn't already (i only see version 2 license on blender.org), they should
probably accelerate any consideration of upgrading to version 3.
That ms are even flirting with a gpl product is quite amazing really, but gpl3
might just make sure they cannot subvert it also.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 07:11 PM EDT |
The OOXML thing, now this.. It strikes me as something that MS can't lose
doing.
If they 'win' then they get their way.. in this case, who knows what they plan?
A nice big fat cheque offering to the Blender guys to move to the "all new
MS 3d file format" ?
If they 'lose' (ignored, criticized) then they can play the 'poor me, we keep
trying to extend our hand but they keep ignoring/criticizing us' line.. and then
they can just do whatever the hell they want (which they would have anyhow) but
all the while playing the 'poor me' card to offset their evil doings.
It may well be a smart move from a business sense but it's been said a thousand
times - actions speak louder then words and MS's actions, time and time again,
show themselves for what they really are.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 07:21 PM EDT |
While PJ is pointing to the 'battle' mentality of Ballmer and his merry barons,
I think the initial query contains a comment that is more honest and
straightforward than was intended:
<i>'The ISO standard Office Open XML is an example of the direction we are
moving towards.'</i>
What more need be said?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: argee on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 07:39 PM EDT |
Blender runs on Windows, therefore ...
Linux is not needed. Therefore ...
People stay with Windows. Therefore ...
Try to change Blender from GPL to BSD. Therefore ...
Microsoft can take the Blender Code, and
put it into Windows. Therefore ...
Profit!
An Excellent Business Model!
Those MS Guys are good!
And its good for the economy!
---
--
argee[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SirHumphrey on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 08:36 PM EDT |
| Feeeeeeeeeeeeeel the EMBRACE!!!!!!!!!!!!! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 09:25 PM EDT |
Their view of open source is this:
(1) We use them to develop for us and on our platform.
(2) They are to be stunted by any means.
(3) They're a threat to our business model.
So whatever gestures they make to open source, it is often filled with catches,
conditions, and hidden agendas. They're really not worth doing business with in
the long run. They're not interested in genuinely working with people and being
part of a community. In fact, they've even tried to create their own imitation
of open source! Heck, even re-defined the term "open" to suit their
business!
They are only interested in getting leverage over others. ie: To get control and
to do anything to maintain control.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 09:46 PM EDT |
Sorry, but this just looks suspicious to me. Am I really supposed to believe
this story? Who is Ton Roosendaal and who exactly did he contact a Microsoft?
Has any of this been verified?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 10:53 PM EDT |
| Get it? They view everything as a battle. "All Open Source innovation" means
to him, I gather, that Windows runs the applications so well, the GNU/Linux
operating system dies off.
If that's the plan then I think they are
going to be disappointed. The easiest people by far to move to Linux are ones
that already run FOSS apps. on their Windows boxes. Of course it's in MS's best
interest to support those FOSS apps. that don't already have popular propriatary
competition on Windows (like blender) and it's in our best interest to support
those apps. that do (Gimp, Apache, OO etc).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 11:28 PM EDT |
Blender is a cabable application but is is not dominate in any market I'm
familiar with.
So why is Blender targeted for this special attention?
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 11:29 PM EDT |
| And in reply:
Blender is an open-source project. As with all open source
projects, our roadmap is driven by the needs that our development community
perceives --- "scratching an itch" is the common phrase.
Microsoft
apparently "itches" to add support for more file formats to Blender. This is
good, as we understand that Microsoft also employs programmers who are
intimately familiar with those file formats. By all means submit your code
supporting them to the project.
As always, we do require that you legally
license your submission compatibly.
Thank you for your inquiry,
etc. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- No problem - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 03:42 AM EDT
- and this... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 09:09 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 11 2008 @ 11:35 PM EDT |
| Just say NO! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 12:11 AM EDT |
When M$ approaches you remember that they are doing so not for your benefit but
for theirs. Don't trust them, and don't sign a deal with them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 06:46 AM EDT |
Firstly, I think Microsoft would be wise to explain this
sort of
licensing:
Also,
the license for the free (Express Edition) of MASM 8
precludes commercial
use of the binaries
it produces. This is odd because the VS2005 Express
Edition C++ compiler has
no such restriction,
nor does any version of MASM
6.
And as we know, Linux's
licensing now
permits commercial
use - or rather, does not discriminate against
commercial entities making use of it, nor commercial
entities earning profit
from supporting it - , whereas
previously - Linux 0.01 did not
permit
any commercial use at all:
The very first
license used for the kernel was _not_ the GPL at all, but
read the release
notes for Linux 0.01, and you will see:
2. Copyrights
etc
This kernel is (C) 1991 Linus Torvalds, but all or part
of it may
be
redistributed provided you do the following:
- Full source
must be available (and free), if not
with the
distribution then
at least on asking for it.
- Copyright notices must be intact. (In
fact, if
you distribute
only parts of it you may have to add
copyrights,
as there aren't
(C)'s in all files.) Small partial
excerpts may
be copied
without bothering with copyrights.
- You may not distibute this for a fee, not
even "handling"
costs.
Microsoft's confusion about the GPL
and
"non-commercial" licensing and use of their
software is about as useful
as an udder on a bull. That
they then extend this confusion to the Free and
Open Source
Software communities throws that confusion into sharp
relief.
Secondly, we need to see that Microsoft is indeed taking
the
responsibilities of being an active part of the FOSS
communities seriously.
When IBM approached Apache about
becoming part of their community, they were
told the only
way to do so, was simply to contribute. If Microsoft
wishes to
take part in making Blender run better on MS
Windows, then openly submitting
bug reports and fixes is
the way to go. Merely talking about it just gets
people's
dander up. And muttering incomprehensibly about "file
formats" is a good way to get your face laughed in.
Of course, I
would also like to see Microsoft release
the source trees of MS Windows 95, MS
Windows NT 3.51, MS
Office 97, MS Visual C++ and Visual Basic 4.x, Visual
[Programming Language] Express [Studio], etc, under
the GPL v3, just to
convince us that they have buried the
hatchet with the FSF GNU Project's
General Public License,
and furthermore
have no intentions of exercising any
software "patents" against anyone in any of the FOSS
communities.
Until they do so, I feel I have very specific
reasons to doubt any claim of
Microsoft's that they have
foresworn the use of software "patents"
against the
developers of FOSS. ---
finagement: The Vampire's veins
and Pacific torturers stretching back through his own season. Well, cutting
like a child on one of these states of view, I duck [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 07:22 AM EDT |
Maybe Blender will learn from OLCP. If you find a snake on
your doorstep asking to come in because it is cold outside
it is always better to leave the snake outside regardless
of how you may feel. One doesn't need to speculate on M$
motives or goals, you already know what the end result will
be. Blender are fools if they get involved with M$.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 07:41 AM EDT |
I assume some of the point is with regard to the file format blender uses, is it
an ISO specified format or just some custom thing they bashed together like many
people before and after them will do. Answer at...
http://www.blender.org/community/blender-conference/blender-conference-2004/proc
eedings/kent-mein/full-paper/
Trying to link FOSS with standards compliance is a complete red herring, some
does many dont. I'm sure I'd have great fun coding up something to read file
that blenders own docos describe as
"basically a dump of the data structures in blender with some information
on the "version" of the .blend that tells blender how to deal with
things"
lots of people need to learn about open specifications not only MS.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Hmmm... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 01:56 PM EDT
- Hmmm... - Authored by: lukep on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 04:05 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: philc on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 08:57 AM EDT |
There is no need for MS to deal with FOSS projects. The source is available and
the forums are available. They can spend the money, do the port, and make their
source changes available to all according to license requirements. Just like
anyone else.
If they are really interested in interoperability, they could contribute to WINE
to get it complete.
If they work with the projects, they can make their changes in a fashion that
will be accepted back into the project.
Open source is open to all to participate and contribute. Its all about open
availability to source to everyone.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 09:30 AM EDT |
If Bender goes along, they get swallowed.
If Bender does not go along, MS gets to claim the FOSS side isn't interested in
interoperability.
Either way, MS wins.
Requiring licensing terms that MS can never accept might be a viable way out...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 09:37 AM EDT |
"Get it? They view everything as a battle. "All Open Source
innovation" means to him, I gather, that Windows runs the applications so
well, the GNU/Linux operating system dies off. Who needs it?"
PJ.
This is a knife that cuts both ways. OpenOffice.org, Gimp with GTK runs
beautifully on Windows. I know because I use the two products all the time.
They also run beautifully on Linux and Mac OS X.
"GNU Linux operating system dies off."
This will never happen as long as Microsoft is the champion of OGA, WGA and
DRM Lockin, and an inherently insecure, bloated, nagging operating system.
Microsoft is bound and determined to make the Windows WOW experience as painful
as possible.
If you put the open source applications on the Windows desktop and get people
used to using them, then when the next MS Office release comes down, requiring
another hardware upgrade, people will say "why bother, this open product
runs just fine." When you need to buy another computer or recycle a
perfectly good one with Ubuntu, with all the same open applications people have
gotten used to, it becomes a no brainer.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 09:46 AM EDT |
"If they continue to avoid truly open standards and their own file formats
provide a sub-optimal experience for Windows users, then it is not the open
source community that has a problem imho"
While this is technically true, it is the wrong answer.
This is not a user centric response.
I don't bother trying to make web pages I write for personal use work on
Internet Explorer. I can get away with this because the only browser I trust is
Firefox, and they are only for my own use.
But if I were to write a page for public consumptions, I had better follow the
W3C standards, and add whatever checks and adjustments needed so the thing
behaves on IE.
So, pick your audience, and code for the audience. If that means MS c... then
so be it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 11:27 AM EDT |
...so to make the project safe from Microsoft's exec's greed.
Seriously, now that Blender is in MSFT radas, is time to consider the extra
anti-patent-FUD protection the GPLv3 provides. Then Microsoft won't dare touch
Blender.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 12:11 PM EDT |
P.J. has:
It's to have Windows do everything, including running
Linux applications, better than anyone else.
There's just one
little problem with that. In MS' history, they have never allowed anything to
run better on Windows then their own product if they could prevent
it.
Which means they'll be in an interesting position if that's their
goal. Do they:
- Allow FOSS apps to temporarily run better then their own
bloated products while hoping the end result of those apps is that they actually
perform better then on the "native OS"?
- Allow FOSS apps to run on
Windows, but in a hobbled environment so their own apps appear much better in
comparison?
If they're actually going down that path, it'll be
interesting to see which of the above MS chooses.
If they choose to allow
FOSS apps to run "as built" then MS' own products will suddenly be obviously
lower grade material even to "Aunt Jane".
If they choose to hobble FOSS
apps then anyone showing the app running on both a MS platform and a non-MS
platform will easily be able to identify the fact that the problem resides on
the MS platform.
Note: I deliberately used "native OS" instead of Linux
because a good number of FOSS apps are built targetting multiple platforms and
not necessarily built on Linux first.
I suspect MS is asking the FOSS app
what it "most needs" in order to have a better idea of what they need to do to
lock it out further. I say that because I can't imagine MS is impressed with
apps such as Wine, Cedega or ... argghhh.... that network file access one (for
some reason, I can't think of the name of it at the moment).
In short:
although it's more difficult to make sure the FOSS apps can run on Windows
without MS' help then with, the reality is it's happening.
MS must also
realise there is no way they can hope to keep up with the release cycles of the
key FOSS apps/OS. For example, MS took approx. twice as long to produce Vista
then the FOSS world took to produce the same additional functionality in Gnome
and KDE. In that time, KDE required an external app to add the 3D
functionality. Today, it has that 3D functionality built into it. I also
understand it's being setup to be able to be your main desktop GUI on MS as
well. If that's true, ouchies to MS.
If MS wishes to keep on building
it's own apps to sell for full profit, their only hope is to hobble any FOSS
apps that are built to run on MS.
Based on that, I'd expect they want as
much information as they can get from Blender so they can be in a better
position to hobble it. I'll be surprised if they actually want to help blender
be able to run better on MS.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jose on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 12:46 PM EDT |
>> "I would love to see all Open Source innovation happen
on top of Windows. So we've done a lot to encourage, for
example, the team building, PHP, the team building, many
of the other Open Source components, I'd love to see those
sorts of innovations proceed very successfully on top of
Windows.
"Because our battle is not sort of business model to
business model. Our battle is product to product, Windows
versus Linux, Office versus OpenOffice."
What this reconfirms (maybe unintentionally or even
through selective quoting by groklaw ??) is that the
threat to Monopolysoft is principally from Linux and from
Openoffice (as they see it.. and you only have to glance
at their 10K to understand why). These are two of the more
visible and obvious components of their interlocking
monopolies.
WinFOSS helps preserve Monopolysoft's power because it
helps "Windows". "MSO" is also helped if Monopolysoft can
manage to get you to use UhOhXML, as they appear to want
the Blender project to do.
Users will most appreciate your project (eg, Blender) the
day Windows is replaced by Linux. You can prepare
maximally for that day by not wasting time with Windows
ports, or you can push that date further off into the
future.
A custom Linux LiveCD is the best way to create the best
experience for your target audience. It is a free download
and can be run on a VM or spare computer. That platform
can be designed completely to spec (eg, as Blender folks
would want it). It is completely free, customizable, and
shareable (royalty free) by Blender users.
See post #8/9 http://ostatic.com/161583-blog/read-t h
e-fine-print-on-open-source-software
>> First, coding Microsoft protocols is a rat race....
>> Two, remember that it is in Monopolysoft's best
business interest to preserve their monopolies and, where
such monopolies can be leveraged (skirting the law for the
time being), to make sure the interfaces they provide to
third parties are broken or break (perhaps even after a
software update that happens transparently at night while
you sleep, changing key software you lease from them and
files you own.. as I am sure their EULA stipulates can
happen)....
Why doesn't Microsoft move to ODF and then come back to
talk? I imagine Blender's file formats (of which I have
limited knowledge) and most other file formats will
eventually integrate with ODF or with something from the
W3C.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 12:52 PM EDT |
Their goal, however, isn't true interoperability. It's to have
Windows do everything, including running Linux applications, better than anyone
else. Why should you settle for Brand X
"interoperability"?
Considering the technical limitations of the
Windows platform in the realm of 3d graphics, I doubt that. Considering also
the technical limitations of blender and the average hardware that will use it,
I highly doubt that.
At worst this is just Microsoft realizing that it
is shooting itself in the foot with their shoddy support of the most popular
FOSS 3d application.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 01:43 PM EDT |
Hello, this is (Campbell Baton/ideasman42)
As a blender dev I can tell you this is really going to have no impact on
blender.
Our requests from Microsoft are a MSVC license to compile blender on Windows,
and better OpenGL support. (which they claim to have... pfft, yeah right)
There is really no formats microsoft use that is directly relevant to blender
anyway. - aside from BMP and AVI which we already support.
Agree that OOXML is a load of crap and Im not sure why the MS guy would suggest
this as a reason to become buddies with MS.
Again, Blender and Microsoft have very little in common so blender users have
nothing to worry about.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 12 2008 @ 07:20 PM EDT |
why don't we all ask peter quinn how he feels about microsoft openness and
interoperability stance.
I am sure he is well educated about that and will give an objective point of
view.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 04:08 PM EDT |
Microsoft is a company. A BIG company that needs to make money for their
shareholders.
GET IT?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 05:05 PM EDT |
| Please dont ever fall to crap microshaft has to say.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 05:45 PM EDT |
I don't care if microsoft can run my software (which I go to great lengths to
make cross-platform), and I can't run their software on linux. It's not a
competition, we're not keeping tabs of how many programs can run on which OS.
I'm not "fighting the corporation" here, because we're not a
corporation, and we don't stand to lose against them. If we are
"defeated", anyone can pick up our code and continue where we left.
It's Gandhi used to say: "First they ignored me.. then they just kept
ignoring because I was irrelevant, and then I went away". It's a good
strategy :)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 13 2008 @ 08:35 PM EDT |
How about, "Do your own work, M$oft!" You want some information?
Don't just ask 'them that's doing' for the answers, join the Blender community
and contribute some hacks to the Windows port. Formulate your own opinions and
in the process actually participate in the Open Source process. Try it, it's
the Future![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 14 2008 @ 12:15 AM EDT |
I think this is a 2-way street.
I'm sure that there are many developers that would love to have the source code
for the C# development environment.
While I am a bit new to this, I do think the world would benefit from a good
cross-compiler / development system that would generate stable executables for
LINUX, Macintosh, and WINDOZE.
Or..
Perhaps one should ask Microsoft to provide a dozen developers with unlimited
access to improve the WINE project (as open source, of course).
And, verify that all Microsoft software is stable under WINE without any tedious
hacks.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 14 2008 @ 11:01 AM EDT |
Obviously Microsoft wants FOSS developers to make their applications work better
with Windows. They DON'T HAVE TO PAY THEM to write and maintain those
applications, and they (hence the OS) isn't responsible if/when problems with
the app appear.
And, there's another reason: In an interoffice email written on January 6,
2000, the retiring Microsoft Technical Evangelist pointed out to the fellow
starting up a Microsoft Evangelism Team that "Every line of code written to
Microsoft's Standard is a small victory for Microsoft; and every line of code
written to some other Standard is a small defeat for Microsoft".
Do not be deceived. Microsoft considers competition with FOSS to be WAR! Not
only do they win by having FOSS developers writing to Microsoft's Standards, the
presence of high quality FOSS software on XP gives Windows users LESS incentive
to try or move to Linux.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 14 2008 @ 01:06 PM EDT |
| I don't like MicroSoft anymore... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 01:23 PM EDT |
here is one example of what microsoft does and is still doing today.
look at what they did for live meeting.
they bought the company the created live meeting and it was a cross platform
tool worked on linux all you needed was sun's latest java package.
now it doesn't work on linux as of 5/16/08 - and here is the help file from it -
nowhere does it list linux but it lists sun, mac, and everyone else.
so if the developers of blender have any doubt about microsofts intentions than
look no further than live meeting.
enjoy:
Introduction to the Web-based Meeting Console
If you have been using a previous version of the Web-based Live Meeting console
or if you have been using the Windows-based meeting console, you will notice
some differences when you use the Live Meeting 2005 Web-based meeting console.
What's New in Live Meeting 2005 Web-based Console
The following are new features of the Web-based meeting console:
* Send Invite . Presenters can now send e-mail invitations from the
Web-based console.
* Active Presenter. Presenters can be designated as the Active Presenter.
There is a meeting option that allows only the Active Presenter to navigate
through slides.
* Sharing slides. Users of the Web-based console on Apple Macintosh and Sun
Solaris computers can create Sharing slides.
* Taking control of Sharing slides. Users of the Web-based console can be
granted control of the contents of a Sharing slide.
* Live Meeting Presentation (.lmp) file format. Live Meeting presentation
format (.lmp file) replaces the PlaceWare Presentation (.pwp) file format.
Web-based consoles on Windows-based computers can use an uploader tool that will
convert PowerPoint presentations (.ppt files) into .lmp files so that they can
be imported to, and presented in, a meeting.
The following features were removed from the Web-based meeting console:
* Presenter Notes
* Presenter Images
* Snapshot slides
System Requirements
You can use the Web-based Live Meeting console to join meetings without
installing any Live Meeting software on your computer. The Web-based console is
initialized and accessed entirely in an Internet browser window. The Web-based
console does, however, require the following software and hardware in order to
run:
Software Requirements:
Operating System Internet Browser Java Virtual Machines
Apple Mac OS X 10.3 Safari 1.2.3 MRJ (Macintosh Runtime for Java) 1.4.1 or
higher
Sun Solaris 9 Mozilla 1.4 or Netscape 7.0 Sun JVM 1.4.2
Windows XP SP1 or higher
Windows 2000 SP4
Windows 98 SE Netscape 7.2 Sun JVM 1.4.2
Windows Server 2003
Windows XP SP1 or higher
Windows 2000 SP4
Windows 98 SE Internet Explorer 6.0 SP1, SP2 Sun JVM 1.4.2 or MS JVM
(5.0.0.3810) – preinstalled configurations
Hardware Requirements:
* 64 MB RAM
* 56 Kbps modem (DSL, cable, or better recommended) with Internet or
intranet connection
* 800 × 600 screen resolution required for meeting attendees
* 1024 × 768 screen resolution required for presenters
Recording Playback Requirements:
* Live Meeting Replay format: Windows Media Player 9 or later.
Note There is no Live Meeting Replay format support for Mac OS X or for
Sun Solaris.
* Basic Recording format: Any supported browser on a supported operating
system
Was this information helpful?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: thombone on Saturday, May 17 2008 @ 11:37 PM EDT |
NO WAY.
They just want to understand it better -- or outright steal it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
