A Look Inside Microsoft's Open Source Software Lab (Part 2)

re: A Look Inside Microsoft's Open Source Software Lab (Part 2)

nektar — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 21:31:33 GMT

You forgot one thing. Making Microsoft technology such as WMA/WMV codecs, available on open source platforms is also a way for helping interoperability. So, stop thinking only about the competitive aspect of open source and instead start thinking how to get more imvolved in the community, like releasing more Microsoft non-critical software under a shared code license and not only those 3 things you have offered until now and also start thinking how you can port some Microsoft technology over to help interoperability. Only then will your lab be helpful to persons other than Microsoft.

re: A Look Inside Microsoft's Open Source Software Lab (Part 2)

LinWinOverlord — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:12:15 GMT

Unfortunately, I think Microsoft has removed all the documents on the normal Win32 API from TechNet and from MSDN... I really doubt Microsoft will document the functionality of Monad and/or release it under the Microsoft Community License...

re: A Look Inside Microsoft's Open Source Software Lab (Part 2)

Wesley Parish — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:12:10 GMT

"If its so easy why dont you provide us with a native build of BASH 2.05 for Windows 3.1 all the way to Windows XP."

Well, (kibitzing - my besetting sin) I haven't got any documents for the Win32s API so I don't know what's missing and I don't have the SDK/s either, but I've got some documentation on the MS Win2k Win32 API, and the Platform SDK. Of course, with the Native API book in hand as well, I'd be tempted to port it to zw* rather than solely to Win*. More fun that way.

What do you think?

And speaking of Monad/PowerShell, it's good to see from Bill Hilf's words that I'm not the only one who's pleased Microsoft's getting a decent shell/command processor. All I want now is either enough information so I can re-implement it for Linux so we get interoperability in mixed environments, or its source released under the Microsoft Community License so I can do a port of it to Linux, *BSD and OpenSolaris, so we can all get along together instead of getting into "religious wars".

Do you think that's likely? It'd be wonderful, but is it likely?

re: A Look Inside Microsoft's Open Source Software Lab (Part 2)

rjdohnert — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 04:34:44 GMT

" On top of that, I want one thing out of you guys: A build of bash 2.05 for Windows 3.1. I am not joking. I want a Windows-enabled build of Bash (it can be Win32s with a stdio done like the port of BSD ftp in the TCP-32 package) 2.05 for Windows, so that I can play around in Bash on my old 486 "

Tell you what, be a trooper. If its so easy why dont you provide us with a native build of BASH 2.05 for Windows 3.1 all the way to Windows XP. After all, Microsoft shouldnt have to do it all by themselves, this is a community.

re: A Look Inside Microsoft's Open Source Software Lab (Part 2)

segin — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 04:00:21 GMT

I've learned one thing: how much of the Linux kernel is edited by distributions from the kernel.org release of the exact same version.

Neat.

On top of that, I want one thing out of you guys: A build of bash 2.05 for Windows 3.1. I am not joking. I want a Windows-enabled build of Bash (it can be Win32s with a stdio done like the port of BSD ftp in the TCP-32 package) 2.05 for Windows, so that I can play around in Bash on my old 486...

Even better, port Busybox!!

Also, you should provide Bash/Busybox in Vista as a supported componet, and release the source to Monad.