Would you know a bottom if you saw one? - Kevin Delaney, WSJ
|
|
|
Microsoft has a strange open source turn
OPEN SOURCE seems to be getting some flippancy from software giant Microsoft and the organisation's attitude is not too welcome in some quarters.
One thing about the open source movement is that they all like to believe that they are serious about what they do. You can dress up like a Ninja and attack Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman with a rolled up newspaper, but he will see you off with some clever coding quip that will leave you wondering.
So apparently the movement is having a Queen Victoria moment about the Microsoft Open Source project, Common Opensource Application Publishing Platform (CoApp) Wiki. Its FAQ has the question, "LA LA LA LA LA I'm not listening. Most open source projects can't afford a code signing certificate!" and answer "Stop that. I've already told you that it will not be an issue. Signing Code is not optional."
Strange when coming from a willfully clueless outfit like Camp Vole, but then we can't all be IBM. But the user friendly Vole seems to have angered the open sourcerors, who "are not amused", saying that it is proof that Redmond does not take the open source community seriously.
Open source site Xen.org's community manager Stephen Spector wrote in a Network World op-ed that it "just makes me want to go right out and start working on this project... I am also still searching the site to find out who owns the source code written and what license the software will be placed under, a basic concept in open source projects."
Spector clearly thinks Microsoft might not really support its own open source project, and he might be right. The Vole clearly hates open source and has been trying to co-opt and subvert it.
However providing a moment of lightness anywhere in a FAQ can only be a good thing as far as we can see. µ
Share this:
Share
The Inquirer has a habit of writing silly things, especially in it's paraphrasing of others, but this time, the silly part is accurate. The FAQ actually says "LA LA LA LA LA I'm not listening" and the answer is really "Stop that. I already..."
It's not the only answer that's written from an "I" point of view. How unprofessional.
The Inquirer has a habit of writing silly things, especially in it's paraphrasing of others, but this time, the silly part is accurate. The FAQ actually says "LA LA LA LA LA I'm not listening" and the answer is really "Stop that. I already..."
It's not the only answer that's written from an "I" point of view. How unprofessional.
Wrong as per usual. Any signing authority will do, not just Verisign. Microsoft get no control over things other than requesting that the authority revoke a key used by a malicious program.
If you bother to read the FAQ then it even says that there will be a process in place so that submissions can be peer reviewed and signed by them.
The point of the digital signature requirement is to create a degree of trust, not to grab control.
The money figure is *somehow* not mentioned on the CoApp page. But beyond that, this gives a degree of control to Verisign and M$ that at the least undermines open source, and potentially locks it out entirely.
The corporate and gov't arena uses the tactic of deadly slow patience, not immediate total victory. If M$ gets this in place, next year they'll push for another increment, and soon enough, have defeated open source.
That M$ plans to be absolute ruler is in: "Signing code is not optional." Sure it *seems* like a good idea, but the *need* for it boils down to that Windows doesn't really control programs, let alone their resource use, just runs them in series.
The ability to enforce signing and patience is all they need to exert control over all software, and just happens to fit perfectly with plans that in near future, only "authorized" machines get on the net.
A little searching on the web shows up www.ascertia.com, who will do you a Microsoft compatible code signing certificate for this amount per year.
"LA LA LA LA LA I'm not listening. Most open source projects can't afford a code signing certificate!" ....???
A VeriSign code signing certificate is 700$ per year.