Open-source CodePlex helps Microsoft grow up

What a difference a year makes. In the case of CodePlex, Microsoft's open-source code-hosting site, a year has seen Microsoft make serious progress toward real open-source savvy. The site has more than 120,000 registered users and 7,500 projects.

I've noted for years that open source should be an opportunity for Microsoft, not a threat. Windows, for example, should be the world's biggest open-source platform, but it's not, and Microsoft has only itself to blame for this.

But perhaps the rising popularity of CodePlex can help change this. The numbers, as called out by Microsoft's Peter Galli, are impressive:

• Visits to CodePlex more than doubled in 2008 to more than 19 million;
• New registered users were up more than 70 percent to more than 66,000;
• The number of new projects more than doubled to 4,542 in 2008; and
• Microsoft refreshed the underlying CodePlex software 12 times in 2008, introducing a range of new features.

Beyond sheer statistics, however, Microsoft learned to manage open source responsibly in 2008. Microsoft progressed through fits and starts, releasing projects like Sandcastle as "open source" without actually providing the source. Microsoft's open-source team, led by Sam Ramji, however, quickly fixed the problem and has largely managed to avoid similar subsequent snafus.

In this and in other ways, Microsoft is maturing in its perspective of open source. Microsoft has struggled for years with open source's non-existent acquisition fee, but it has simultaneously grown less surly and more realistic about competing with open source.

Open source is one of Microsoft's greatest opportunities, if it would just seize it. Open source gives Microsoft (and every other vendor) an efficient, nearly friction-free method to get one's software into the hands of the widest group of potential buyers. In a recession, the company that has the most people trying its software will almost certainly be the one that has the most people buying its software.

Why not have that software run on Windows? Or tie into SQL Server? Or SharePoint? This is Microsoft's opportunity and, if CodePlex's growth is any indication, it's one that Microsoft is starting to take seriously.

You can follow me on Twitter at mjasay.

[pentest]

How many of those projects are worth anything?

For the most part, they are probably only going to get .net monkeys to post code for pointless little windows only apps. Granted, Windows needs more open source software, but it needs quality rather than quantity.

I am skeptical that MS can attract quality OSS development.

[rapier1]

Sure they can - there is a lot of good quality open source applications that run natively under windows. The question you might be asking is if they can attract OSS developers that will code specifically and exclusively for the windows environment. That might be more difficult.

[Random_Walk]

rapier1, I agree. It is hard to find someone who would intentionally limit themselves and their potential to any one vendor or operating system, or language.

[MSSlayer]

Rapier,

Yes there are, but why would they use CodePlex?

[RompStar_420]

Why even waste time with that ? I already have Linux and it's 100% open-source.

[rapier1]

Do you do commercial software development for a living?

[Millerboy]

Windows should not be open source. Open source is communist. Proprietary software is more reliable, more dependable, and you can hold someone accountable if it fails. I wouldn't want software designed to do critical tasks to be open source. It's kind of like Wikipedia, while Wikipedia is a noble, productive, and useful tool, it will never replace peer-reviewed academic journals. You cannot place a value on knowledge, but you have to protect people's intellectual property. The economic value of a piece of software is determined by how much you're willing to pay for it. The owner sets a price, and the people decide if it's worth buying. There is no inherent value, it's just an arbitrary value.

Whether through patents, trademarks, or whatever. I do not believe open-source software will ever replace ALL commercial software. There will always be a place for Microsoft. If you don't like to pay for software, then don't pay for it. Use Linux, no one is forcing you to buy anything. That's the joy of free market capitalism.

[Random_Walk]

"Proprietary software is more reliable, more dependable, and you can hold someone accountable if it fails."

No, not more reliable by any metric, and the same holds for dependability. Code is just code. It doesn't know or care what license it is branded with, and fails just as easily no matter the license.

Also, if you read the Microsoft Windows EULA, you cannot hold them accountable if Windows fails. They deny all responsibility or warranty beyond a new copy of that exact version of Windows, and the media to put it on.

"I wouldn't want software designed to do critical tasks to be open source."

Why? Wall Street disagrees with you, as it runs on Linux. VMWare's control console runs Linux. Oracle has its own Linux distribution to run mission-critical databases on. If you let a license style get in the way of your purchasing decisions, you make for a very poor IT manager.

"I do not believe open-source software will ever replace ALL commercial software."

It never will, just as proprietary licensing will never replace all commercial software. Yes, that last sentence is correct, as you have confused the word "commercial" with "properietary".

Also, open source is just as capitalistic as any other type, because all open source software is merely copyrighted software given away freely with a few restrictions to insure that it remains open as the original copyright holder intends.

I think you do not understand open source at all, else most of this would have been clear to you.

[ill_fated]

Proprietary software is hardly always more reliable and dependable. Large open source projects benefit from having many eyes looking at the code to spot defects. I don't think many would argue that Internet Explorer is more reliable than the open-source Mozilla Firefox. The open source Apache web server is also the most widely used web server in the world. This would not be so if it wasn't a stable and scalable product.

Open source does not work like Wikipedia. Anybody may submit patches to an open source project but these patches are reviewed by trusted members of the community (often paid employees of the company or organization which sponsors the project) before they are allowed to be entered into the main code base.

Open source also does not imply costing $0. See Red Hat who charges for their Enterprise Linux product. MySQL also offers a free version of their software and an enterprise version which comes at a cost.

[t8]

Compare Wikipedia with Brittanica or Encarta and you have the real argument. Which is the one that most people use?

Journals and academia versus an opne source equivalent would probably be Knol or some other service I haven't heard about.

[galacticcruiser]

"Open source is communist." -- oh boy. Oversimplification of the issue, and more importantly, down right wrong.

Not only is open source more democratic, the access to full information is more akin to capitalism than the proprietary private model, which in MS's case is close to monopoly capitalism, which is very different to free market capitalism...

[Random_Walk]

pentest, I think that the answer to your question depends on who is doing the searching. At Sourceforge/freshmeat, there are millions of projects, but they range to things useful for typical users, like applications, to administration service programs, to program language libraries, to some very odd things that are only attractive to a few, but benefit many.

I think that CodePlex is similar, in that the main appeal is initially to only those who work with code and want or need functionalities that they do not feel like duplicating.

RompStar_420, I agree to an extent, but competition is just as vital to good open source development as it is anywhere else. Also, I think that CodePlex would offer more resources focused towards people who are limited (or who limit themselves) to .NET and ASP-like programming.

rapier1, commercial software development and open source are not mutually exclusive at all. IBM relies heavily on open source, yet they hire a lot of programmers. This also holds true with Red Hat, Intel, Apple, Cisco, VMWare, Oracle, and most of the other really big names in tech.

[Seaspray0]

Excellent posts, Random_Walk. I enjoyed reading them.

[Matt Asay]

I don't think Microsoft needs to open source Windows, or to try to encourage developers to write only for Windows. That's a 1990s style of competition. Today, Microsoft needs open source running on/with its software, and much of it does, at least, commercial open source does.

[Random_Walk]

Agreed. Open Source has too many advantages that Microsoft cannot duplicate, even if their budgets were ten times as large. Most of the real innovation occurs outside of EULAs and license fees. Microsoft needs to capture as much of that as it can, or at least a share of the benefits of this.

[MSSlayer]

Copeplex is a reinvention of the wheel, not an improvement of it. I would like to know the point of it.

[Random_Walk]

MSSlayer, I think it is merely something Microsoft wanted that they could pay closer attention to for their specific languages and products, such as .NET. there is nothing inherently wrong with this at all, as long as everyone participating knows what they are getting in to.

[t8]

Here is how I see it. Open Source is good for all. But if you provide Open Source exclusively for Microsoft, then the only real beneficiary is Microsoft and hence you are their employee except to say that they won't give you a red cent.

They are only interested in one thing, their Windows franchise. If they get you to code to their platform then that will help them and they won't give a flying @#$% about your product.

[Random_Walk]

Not always. If the license is a true open source license, or otherwise OSI approved, you can always take the flow or logic and convert it to C++, Perl, or a similar language that makes it useful to all other platforms. There are many utilities that convert .NET and the like into something useful for cross-platform, or at least useful for the Mono libraries.

[t8]

To the comment above.
True that, but as you said, "not always".
Also this is a good reason to stay away from the Microsoft Cloud.
That would be repeating history, i.e., locking your self in.