Why Microsoft Is Being Nicer To Open Source 231
itwbennett writes "Is open source's growth in emerging markets what is driving Microsoft to say 'we love open source' with an attempt at a straight face? 'The emerging markets (like the BRIC nations) are a huge potential market for Microsoft,' says Brian Proffitt. 'And I believe Redmond is wisely not taking the FUD route on open source software in those markets. Why? Because open source already has some strong roots in the BRIC nations (heck, in Brazil, open source is the whole darn tree), and any attack on open source would be seen as a foreign company attacking local software projects. If Microsoft attacked open source publicly in this environment, a lot of potential customers and developers in those countries could react in a protectionist manner and start giving Microsoft the stink-eye.'"
MS OSS Strategy is UpSide Down. (Score:5, Interesting)
Mod Parent Up (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:MS OSS Strategy is UpSide Down. (Score:5, Insightful)
The slide in your editorial demonstrates Microsoft's vision of OSS during initial announcement a couple years ago. They were all for OSS as long as it fit their definition of it. They were working quite hard to get enterprise businesses to embrace their vision of OSS. If they had business following their vision then the vision of true open source would be blurred and out of sight.
What was identified by the OSS community regarding their definition of OSS those couple years ago was exactly what you have identified here. They showed that Microsoft's definition of OSS was only OSS if it was done for Windows. Of course, that's not what true OSS is nor how it was defined some 17 years ago.
Their definition of OSS was released not too long after several Microsoft employees spoke out about how Microsoft was going to kill Linux. One of them went so far as to predict that that year was the start of the death of Linux.
Their definition is nothing less than embrace, EXTEND, extinguish. By getting business to embrace their view they can reduce the reach of OSS into business because they believe Microsoft's version is the only true OSS. That in effect will cease adoption of OSS by business and hence the death of Linux.
I must admit that Linux adoption seems to have slowed and the amount of press has considerably declined. Certainly some areas have continued to expand.
Re: (Score:2)
They showed that Microsoft's definition of OSS was only OSS if it was done for Windows
understandable.. they don;t care what software you write .. as long as you buy their stuff to do it with. It'd be an interesting software ecosystem (even on Windows only) if they were the only software company allowed to sell software!
I wonder how they'd react if something they sold lots of started to be replaced with an OSS equivalent? A Sharepoint -> Drupal converter for example :)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody will fall for MS OSS strategy...
Because many of these government entities are simply waiting for Microsoft to offer them deep discounts. Sad but true.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When your systems are *already* running OSS then Microsoft can't discount themselves into them, because they would have to give away all their software and licences for free just to match what you're already paying. This is why MS's western-world strategy can not work in BRIC economies.
In the west MS's software is already in business and government systems and the costs and training requirements (or FUD-driven perceived costs, at least) to migrate _away_ from MS _to_ OSS is what MS has traditionally relied
Re: (Score:2)
Embrace <- You are here
Extend
Extinguish
Yes, something is up (Score:3, Interesting)
I get MSDN magazine and the latest issue has a seriously good article on sqlight. They said it works really well on cell phones, etc., where it was almost impossible to install a database server and/or could not always have access to a server to connect back to a database.
transporter_ii
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean SQLite [sqlite.org] ?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes. I wish Slashdot had an edit feature. Crap just doesn't show up until you hit submit...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but SQLite isn't even open source -- it's straight up public domain software. Hardly a threat to Microsoft or its business model.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but SQLite isn't even open source -- it's straight up public domain software.
It sounds like you're confusing "open source" with "copyleft".
Embrace, extend, eliminate (Score:2, Interesting)
This is Microsoft's old M.O.
Nothing to see here folks ...
When the cheese moves you follow it (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft is always going to be concerned with maximizing their profits (their legal fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders). If they see ways to do that by working with or using open source, then they will.
Microsoft is in a position similar to IBM, where they can provide solutions and support them. If part of that solution is open source, MS still gets all the support dollars. A lot of companies use some open source stuff now, but the last thing you want to tell your PHB is that your support comes from some usenet forum.
Re:When the cheese moves you follow it (Score:5, Interesting)
If you recall, the original "Anti-GPL" stance that Microsoft had, went something along the lines of "Contaminating the software ecosystem."
This was at a time when Microsoft was a quasi-dominant force in the server market, when their IIS server platform actually had a reasonable install base in production environments, and Windows was totally unchallenged by Linux and pals.
Fast forward about a decade now. Ubuntu Linux (and it's sub-flavors) is gaining popularity, Android is devistating Microsoft's offering in the handheld OS market, FOSS software is gaining deeply established traction in many developing countries and making inroads in countries that were previously deeply in Microsoft's pockets, and the FUD campaign that GPL==Communism has failed miserably.
As such, their "Cherished" "Software ecosystem" has had no choice but to accept the new competition, which if you re-read their old FUD campaigns, is exactly what they were saying was wrong with GPL software; It is a disruptive license that destroys the status quo, and threatens for-profit development (as it was practiced at the time.)
In the face of their major competitors (like apple) who have at least partially embraced FOSS software (OSX is based on BSD, IIRC.. could be mistaken. That's why Darwin is FOSS.) and are leveraging it like a catylist to gain more and more market penetration and market share, microsoft can no longer afford to try and play the status quo card. That's why the whole "Software ecosystem" rhetoric has dried up. Now they are playing damage control, and trying to butter up to the same projects and people that they snubbed just a decade ago, hoping that small time developers have as short a memory as do MBAs. (Or, even more disturbing, that they can bamboozle new, young and fresh talent in the FOSS community into drinking the koolaid.)
I would trust Microsoft to "Actually like" FOSS, as I would trust Darl McBride to make a linux kernel patch.
Like you pointed out in your post above, Just about the only thing you can predict that Microsoft will do is do whatever is necessary to increase its bottom line; including redact its own policy statements. Likewise, you should expect that Microsoft will do the same thing concerning FOSS policies and licenses, should it cease being profitable for MS to continue such licensing tactics.
This is a very important situation to quietly think to yourself "Caveat Emptor" about, because when you buy into their new policies, you need to be fully aware that Microsoft, can, and likely will, pull the rug out later. Their ONLY loyalty is to their stockholders, and to the all mighty dollar. They don't even have loyalty to their own rules; it would be absurd to expect that they have somehow had a change of heart in a deep way, or to behave ethically if money is involved.
Personally, I find that as a company, they are overburdened in a faulted development and managerial model that wont fare well in the current market environment. Microsoft is slowly but surely being left behind by smaller, or more agile players, much like IBM was neutered by the end of the 90s. As such, I personally would approach this whole issue with a more forward thinking eye.
As much as I DESPISE apple and Mr Jobs, I feel that he is a much more savvy CEO than Ballmer ever was, or ever could be, and this is probably the main reason why there are rumors of his imminent replacement. As such, I would predict Apple's market share to continue to grow in handheld electronic devices, and through that, leverage more into the personal computer market, though Apple seems to be taking the stance that the macintosh market is now a secondary priority.
About the only thing Microsoft has going for it right now is market momentum, and the upgrade inertia of other corporations. (The exact same reason why IE6 refuses to die.)
So, personally I would focus more on other platforms than the microsoft offerings. Microsoft has the smell of death about it.
Re:When the cheese moves you follow it (Score:5, Insightful)
Fast forward about a decade now. Ubuntu Linux (and it's sub-flavors) is gaining popularity, Android is devistating Microsoft's offering in the handheld OS market, FOSS software is gaining deeply established traction in many developing countries and making inroads in countries that were previously deeply in Microsoft's pockets, and the FUD campaign that GPL==Communism has failed miserably.
They were just ahead of their time. Today the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks of the world call anything they don't like communist/socialist and people just accept it without question.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I find that as a company, they are overburdened in a faulted development and managerial model that wont fare well in the current market environment.
Absolutely! This seems to be their biggest problem these days, i certainly agree with most of what you said regarding their support of policies that drive profits. I don't particularly like MS, or Apple even, but they do provide products that work for most people.
Microsoft has the smell of death about it.
Really? [linuxjournal.com] Windows 7 seems to be doing very well.
This is a very important situation to quietly think to yourself "Caveat Emptor" about
Why do people use that term? No-one speaks latin, and in fact it's one letter shorter to write "buyer beware".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As Microsoft has said in the past, open source does have a tendency to spread
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If Microsoft suggests using an open-source program instead of a commercial one, any smart client will notice and begin wondering what else they can get without having to pay licensing costs.
By your logic, the latter would happen for any free product that Microsoft offers, not necessarily FOSS (since the client is presumably mainly concerned about saving $$$). Which does not stop MS from releasing stuff for free or very cheap (e.g.: SQL and VS Express, DreamSpark, BizSpark).
Why? Because sometimes, when you drop the price, or even give something away for free, it boosts sales for the rest of your stuff. For example: free Windows development tools -> more Windows applications -> higher Wind
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that maximizing their profit is what animates MS. Sure, they'd like that but they are more interested in control. This guarantees their survival and jobs over the long haul. There's also a pirate quality about the company. They seem to believe that for them to succeed implies someone else must fail. And in a way, they are correct. They wait until a market has developed and then jump in. That sort of strategy will enforce their belief that for them to succeed, they must cause someone else to fa
Re:When the cheese moves you follow it (Score:5, Interesting)
Aside from Microsoft making somewhat nice with the F/OSS community, which is their own self-interest given that large firms are not monolithic MS, I've noticed that getting technical support for a hybrid set of systems does not automatically get a response that places the blame on the non-MS pieces of your IT setup. If I had to guess, MS may be eyeing the market niche that IBM pretty much dominates (IMNSHO) while still making hardware and creating software; services that mix and match across whatever has in place and make it work. I've seen the first steps in this direction with their various systems management tools, especially for virtualization. The Office cash cow won't last forever and I think they are getting that. Finally.
Does this portend a kinder, gentler Microsoft? Not on your life. They are just continuing with embrace and extend while looking like a 'nice' Microsoft. Yeah, right.
GUIs GUIs GUIs (Score:5, Insightful)
That's where I see MS cutting a nice niche for itself without having to dominate OS's. Their GUI's are usually more intuitive than OSS I have to say. No, they are not perfect, but so far MS does GUI's better than OSS.
I suspect MS spends more time road-testing their GUI's with actual users than OSS products. It's not that they are smarter, they just log the GUI tester hours that most OSS don't or can't. "Basement" coders simply cannot afford such testing sessions, and must rely on email etc. Think about it.
I'm just the messenger, don't shootmod me, please.
Re: (Score:2)
Their GUI's are usually more intuitive than OSS
Let me respectfully disagree. Their GUIs are more polished.
IMHO, their interface has become less intuitive since Win9x/Win2000.
Win9x/Win2000, GNOME, OS X have a coherent UI. That is less the case with WinXP, and Vista, Win7 are a mess from my point of view. And I probably lack experience with KDE to comment fairly, but I think that while it has coherent UI, it is too cluttered.
Re: (Score:2)
We recently had to upgrade from Office 2003 to 2007 at work. Everyone agrees that the new interface is far less intuitive and provides no benefit. The only benefit of the new interface is that it's so foreign to everyone that someone who learned on Office 2007 would have a harder time switching to Open Office. I really don't think that GUI design change was motivated by any customer input.
Re: (Score:2)
As for their attitude
"Could?" (Score:2)
What's this "'could react in a protectionist manner and start giving Microsoft the stink-eye'" shit? Isn't that the normal reaction?
Re: (Score:2)
Since you seem knowledgeable on the subject...
What the hell is a "stink-eye"?
Have never heard this turn of phrase before.
Re: (Score:2)
= dirty look
Re: (Score:2)
Simply posting a link to goatse in this case would have been on topic then?
Noticed something (Score:2)
From the article...
since business-types and engineering-types don't often communicate to each other very well.
Oh boy...did he ever hit the bullseye with this one.
The Eternal Spin Zone: Microsoft (Score:4, Funny)
Few years ago, right here on /., someone compared Microsoft and Open Source to being a dinosaur
spinning in circles within a tar pit and several animals barking and chattering around it, watching
and waiting as the pathetic creature was sucked in completely by the tar.
Could it be the dinosaur's head is slightly above the tar's surface and a fat, greasy, yet
tiny rodent like clawed hand is reaching out with a large slice of bacon and waving it around
for every animal surrounding it to see, with a pathetic grin and swan song expressing a last
mournful love interest in the solidarity of its foes?
Do not fall for the melody of the monster, nor the pit which welcomes him and his own kind.
Geeks Know Better (Score:3, Insightful)
Emperor: Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational battle station! *click* Fire at will, commander!
Crewfish: Sir, we have star destroyers!
Admiral Ackbar: It's a trap!
Zoe: So. Trap? ....
Mal: Trap.
Wash: Wait...how do you...
Mal: You were listenin' I take it?
Everyone:
Mal: Did'ja hear us fight?
Zoe: No?
Mal: Trap.
not true (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:not true (Score:5, Interesting)
The guys that make the WUBI product are from India.
I know India is heavily into math. It really would make sense to have more in India using Linux because more people would have examples to learn by, especially complex code such as the OS kernel.
If India is a lot like their nearby neighbors in Asia most people would be pirating Windows.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I know India is heavily into math.
My daughter's Sunday school in the temple has about 180 kids almost all of them in the top 5-10% of their schools. Would be considered stunning statistic. By law of averages no more than 20 of them should be in the top 10% of their school. But if you randomly pick 180 kids of all ethnicities in America from families with two college educated parents, with a median family income of 55K, you would find they too are in the almost always in the top 5-10% of their school. This is known as sample bias.
Most Ind
Re:not true (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd heard the educational system in India emphasized math. To what degree I guess I don't know. I was under the understanding that it was the primary emphasis of the educational system in India.
They stress arithmatic in the lower elementary school a lot. Rote memorization of multiplication-tables and very fast arithmatic work is emphasized. I can still rattle off my multiplication table upto 16 times 16. I also memorized fractional multiplication tables. one "arai" times three "kaal" is three "araikaal" and such things. The Indian languages have named fractions for 0.5 (arai), 0.25(kaal), 0.125 (araikaal) and 0.0625 (maakaani). English has names only for 0.5 and 0.25. These were tough. But my aritmatic peaked in my entrance examn years. I knew by heart the logarithms of 2, 3, pi, and square roots of 2, 3 and 5!
But when it comes to higher mathematics like Algebra and Trignometry Indian system is not much better than American system. The American system places less emphasis on arithmatic and rote memorization and stresses understanding basic math concepts. By the time Calculus comes around, you will see the superiority of the American education system.
But vast majority of the students in both USA and India do not get do much higher mathematics. So the enormous investment America has done in emphasizing the math concepts is wasted and frittered away. Indians appear to be so much stronger in math. But remember Arithmatic is just one subset of Mathematics. In fact it is a small subset of higher mathematics.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude! It's time to stop practicing and give it a go for real!
Re:not true (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree. Here in Sri Lanka most people have never heard of Linux, are terrified of trying anything new, and only ever use Linux because it is free of cost.
It is gaining some traction, but it still has a tiny desktop share (it is fairly widely used ons servers though).
It has also had a significant impact on MS's revenues. Corporates has successfully used the "we will switch to Linux" threat when MS has tried to make them actually pay for software (AFAIK the only software ANYONE here actually pays for is either very specialist stuff, Lotus Notes and some Adobe stuff - the first because they need the support, the others because it is more expensive to switch platforms than pay up).
Re: (Score:2)
Nice Doggy (Score:2)
Microsoft's attitude to OSS is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until they can find a rock. [quotationspage.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I like to think of them as being a snake at the dinner table with that astonished look in their eye after being accused of swallowing the whole turkey while a suspicious lump is sliding down their body.
Standing joke (Score:2, Insightful)
Along with beowolf clusters and Russia doing stuff in reverse, we now have the equally tiresome joke that Microsoft is being nicer to open source. Why do these articles keep getting posted?
MS may 'love' open source ... (Score:2)
... but they still won't give it a reach-around.
Simple, really. (Score:3, Insightful)
Developers, developers, developers, developers.
Open Source projects for Windows mean more functionality, interoperability, and convenience for Windows users, and Microsoft doesn't have to do a damn thing to get it. Open Source and Linux are two different things, and Microsoft now realizes this.
Re: (Score:2)
If MS have their way, the only open source being written will be dependent on proprietary windows functionality, making it very difficult to port it to any other platform.
Microsoft hate interoperability and have spent years trying to make it as difficult as possible to use anything else in any environment where you will encounter windows users... They will only ever tolerate any form of interoperability when it goes one way, so outlook will support standards like imap/pop3/smtp but it never works very well
Keyword there (Score:2)
Is bad press to be the big guy bullying the small one. But that don't mean that the big guy loves him, or that "pay" a slightly smaller guy (i.e. Oracle?) to do the dirty job.
So basically they're making themselves irrelevant? (Score:2)
If you support or recommend open-source software, people will use it. If they use it, they aren't paying you.
Thus, your business becomes built on a foundation of others' OSS software, and at that point, you're selling something people can get elsewhere for free.
Same thing has been tried, and unless you're IBM and you're aggressively selling to big business/enterprise, you don't make a whole lot of money, and you're likely to fold in a few years.
Oracle makes microsoft look nice by comparison (Score:3, Interesting)
Oracle is already killing off opensolaris, suing google over android, and who knows what will happen to mysql
or openoffice down the road.
Microsoft paranoia has blinded us to the enemy in our midst. Bill Gates never did as as much damage to open source
as Larry Ellison is doing.
They play nice only while it benefits them (Score:2)
*rant warning*
any attack on open source would be seen as a foreign company attacking local software projects
I bet they considered this in the beginning, but just didn't give a damn because they only thought of themselves, and not of the betterment of the software community.
Re:Wrong (Score:4, Informative)
The article didn't say or even imply that Microsoft hasn't slammed open source, the whole point was that they're not doing it any more.
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The article didn't say or even imply that Microsoft hasn't slammed open source, the whole point was that they're not doing it any more.
Yeah, that's usually called "pandering".
Like the summary explains, they're doing this out of a concern that anything else might alienate potential customers in various markets. That is not a change of heart. It's the same old self-serving Microsoft we've always known. They'd say that Jeffrey Dahmer was a really great guy if they thought it would boost sales. Microsoft hasn't changed. What will and won't alienate potential customers is the only thing that has changed here.
I'll put it very bluntly: anyone who believes otherwise is a naive fool who doesn't understand the first thing about this company or its history.
Re: (Score:2)
So let's see. Microsoft will do anything that it thinks will boost sales.
Those bastards! Next thing you know they will have the audacity to start fixing bugs that people complain about, or implement features that are requested, or even make products that they think people will buy! Oh Noes! The horror. The horror!
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
You accurately summarized my paragraph...
The point, my eager-to-resort-to-mockery friend, is that appearing to appreciate Open Source is what Microsoft believes is in its interests today. It was not in Microsoft's interests yesterday (not literally 24 hours ago but figuratively speaking) and may not be in their interests tomorrow. Microsoft is doing this because they hope it will appeal to people who care about Open Source. The people who believe it are likely to find that Microsoft will continue this act for just long enough to lock them into using its software. At that point Microsoft will feel that the ruse has served its purpose and will revert to openly regarding Open Source as an enemy.
Now that you know what my point was, or now that it's more difficult for you to deny knowing what my point was (whichever may be the case), you can see plainly that it has absolutely nothing to do with fixing bugs, adding features, or introducing new products. If you weren't deliberately trolling, you provided a good example of what emotional knee-jerk reactions lead to.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people see no virtue beyond expedience. Argue with them for a lifetime and they'll never understand your point.
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps, being technical types, you and clodney are overestimating the importance of technical quality. End-user sales are increased through marketing, not quality products.
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps, being technical types, you and clodney are overestimating the importance of technical quality. End-user sales are increased through marketing, not quality products.
Hey, again, as a matter of nuance: I never said that this is a valid point (i.e. never said that quality is the only factor that drives the sales). I only said that "MS will not quite do everything to boost the sales" is a point.
As for my opinion on the validity of this point: of course "playing nice" (or pretending, thereof) costs a heap less than "fix the crap". This is not to say that MS doesn't fix the bugs or doesn't implement requested features (because they eventually do it, otherwise no need for Wi
Re: (Score:2)
Im not sure if English is the first language of most nit-pickers here, but most of the time saying "entity X will do anything to accomplish Y" is not to be taken as absolute truth, but as a general position. Arguing over the finer points of what entails "anything" is indeed to miss any point the speaker is trying to make, and just being argumentative for its own sake.
But continuing on that diversion, for example fixing bugs in the short term is usually either,
1. Part of a contract obligation - which were te
Re: (Score:2)
Arguing over the finer points of what entails "anything" is indeed to miss any point the speaker is trying to make, and just being argumentative for its own sake.
Or just going on a tangent and (pleasant as it would be) waste some more time on /.? (relax, cool down, unwind, start seeing colors where only black-and-white used to be)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the relative 'failure' of sub-notebooks with Linux preinstalled. Most people expected to run Windows apps on them and I'll bet a very large number were returned to the store for this reason (otherwise why would they not be offered anymore?).
Assume for a moment that most people do want to run Windows for whatever reason (familiarity, MS office, etc...).
Then they start getting into open source software on Windows and seeing all that is out there like games, word processors, ad nauseum. At some point
Re: (Score:2)
It's up to us to keep their past FUD tactics as public knowledge. We mustn't give Microsoft the chance to fake a new image to those who are unfamiliar with their past wrong doings!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
We need a sign!
Safety first: it has been [15] days since Microsoft last attacked.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's your sign? :p
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha nice try, but you'll have to step up your game if you want to goatse any Slashdotters.
Re:Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
My reading skills aren't the problem here. Perhaps some focus on your own skillset might be in order?
They're on the ropes (Score:3, Insightful)
They see they've missed the transition to mobile, they feel their empire slipping away. Deliberate incompatibility isn't working any more, so this is the change-up. Don't be confused though - as an entity Microsoft still sees open source as "open sores" - a cancer, in Steve Ballmer's words. They just realize that in some markets they have to be more diplomatic now.
In others? Well I'll just quote the first comment from the fine article:
Nicer? Not really! Here is an excerpt from an invitation for a seminar by Microsoft in Budapest/Hungary on 8.30.2010. "Program: 9:30 - 10:30 The art of selling against free, opensource Office competitors by Moritz Berger / Enterprise Tech Strategist (in English) 10:30 - 11:00 Coffee break 11:00 - 12:00 Technical teardown of OpenOffice by Moritz Berger / Enterprise Tech Strategist" by Anonymous (not verified) on 8/30/10 at 4:43 pm
I get these invitations from Microsoft too. Everybody in tech does
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, you posted that 40 minutes after my comment. I guess time-travel should be part of my skill set?
Moreover, your revised point is the same as the article: MS is changing its tune (even if merely opportunistically), and yet you claim that the article gets its history wrong ...
Re: (Score:2)
I could link to a dozen articles, at least, discussing just this here at Slashdot.
How many of these articles are in Portuguese? The public mass consciousness has no memory, only a fickle perception of the present.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
That's a fair point - but really - while that might work, my point is that we've got an editorial that doesn't really make the point you are trying to make. Microsoft is saying good things about open source in ALL OF ITS markets. For now. Changing what they've done in the past.
It seemed apparent to me that the point he was trying to make is not what you are responding to there. In fact I was about to make this point my own way until I saw that he had already raised it.
The point is that the general public seems to have an awfully short memory. Otherwise they'd be rightly skeptical of this move. They'd understand that a model of 100% open source software from operating systems to applications is antithetical to Microsoft's business model (for one, that sure would make it hard to implement vendorlock). That alone renders this move suspect. Then there's the long history of viewing Open Source as an enemy, both in the form of action and in the form of things like the Halloween documents.
If Microsoft is saying good things about Open Source in "all of its markets" it's only because of the ease with which the Internet would expose any attempt to say good things in Location A and bad things in Location B. That would just make them look stupid and would be counterproductive to their goal of pandering to the BRIC nations. They're ruthless bastards in my opinion but no one who takes a hard look at their use of long-term strategy would conclude that they are stupid.
GP was not denying that Microsoft is currently acting warm and fuzzy towards Open Source. I have no idea why you reiterate the editorial and must conclude you didn't correctly comprehend the GP. The grandparent is saying that Microsoft's new stance is not genuine and that a cursory understanding of the way this company does business would strongly affirm that position. If documentation of their history in Portuguese can promote such an understanding it could remedy the public's short memory.
The public sees that now Microsoft is being kinder to Open Source. Many seem to forget what the last 10-15 years of the Microsoft monopoly was like. And all it took was a change of PR strategy. They definitely got their dollar's worth from the marketing department this time.
You see this kind of short memory in politics all of the time. Why would it be a surprise when the same tendency is shown regarding business? In either case it doesn't survive contact with the facts so that's where a constructive remedy can be applied.
Not entirely wrong. (Score:2)
Perhaps Microsoft shows one face to the nations in question ("we lurve FOSS"), but their usual face to the rest of the planet ("lunix suX0rz!").
It's not like a corporation that big can't present opposing personalities, each suited to the markets they're trying to take on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not entirely wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
Corporations are not people. They hate when you antropomorphize them.
In all seriousness, it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing stance. Microsoft is a business; it exists to earn money. When and where supporting FOSS one way or another is beneficial to the bottom line, directly (more sales) or indirectly (good PR -> more sales), of course it will be supported! This doesn't mean that it'll be supported all the way - and while we're at it, go ask Google for the source code for PageRank...
Re: (Score:2)
No one complains about Microsoft because it is a business or because, as you put it, it exists to earn money. The main reason why Microsoft earned such a profoundly negative reputation is because that corporation has a long history of intentionally deceiving, defrauding and undermining competing projects and businesses.
There is absolutely no reason to dislike anyone just because he intends to run a business. On the other hand, there is a terribly long list of reasons to dislike someone if that person is s
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft may be interested in open source, but the real question is, is the real open source interested in Microsoft? Tainting the water is a bad thing. Patent battles are going on like crazy today. It probably isn't a good thing to get open source involved in that if at all possible.
And, Microsoft's seemingly over night change of heart can be changed over night again. There's no historical evidence that they should be trusted.
Microsoft's version/vision of open source is much different than the official definition of open source. Even if they are making happy with something it isn't true open source.
We might not want to trust Microsoft at all, ever, because of their preexisting policy of embrace, extend, extinguish.
The few instances where some code was contributed are infinitesimally tiny overall. The size of open source code universe makes those Microsoft contributions look like an amoeba compared to the sun.
Re: (Score:2)
Patent battles are going on like crazy today. It probably isn't a good thing to get open source involved in that if at all possible.
Did you miss Apple's recent patent lawsuit against Google over Android (which, need I remind, is very much FOSS)?
And, Microsoft's seemingly over night change of heart can be changed over night again. There's no historical evidence that they should be trusted.
You can still deal with people whom you don't trust - you just assume the worse case scenario, you'll get as much from the deal as is legally entitled to you, and not a bit more. From there, trust may (or may not) eventually enter the picture.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your comments show a total misunderstanding of open source on your part.
Your point seems to be that we need to *trust* a person or a company before we *let* them join open source. And the trust should be perpetual. That is a darn big barrier. I doubt anyone is actually qualified.
I think Linus Torvalds once said it very well: "People don't need to trust me because of the GPL" (or sth to that effect). The GPL protects the copyrights of the contributors and makes sure it stays in the public domain forever. The
Right (Score:2)
My comments have little to do with trust, except in regards to trusting their commitment to open source, and their willingness to adhere to the definition of open source.
Tainting the waters is pretty self explanatory. Many people didn't want to look at some "leaked" Microsoft code for the possibility that Microsoft could claim Linux was tainted by the release. Think SCO, in how they claimed that Linux was copying huge chunks of code.
SCO's code contributions seemed clearly in favor of Linux and open source
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft may be interested in open source, but the real question is, is the real open source interested in Microsoft? Tainting the water is a bad thing. Patent battles are going on like crazy today. It probably isn't a good thing to get open source involved in that if at all possible.
And, Microsoft's seemingly over night change of heart can be changed over night again. There's no historical evidence that they should be trusted.
Microsoft's version/vision of open source is much different than the official definition of open source. Even if they are making happy with something it isn't true open source.
We might not want to trust Microsoft at all, ever, because of their preexisting policy of embrace, extend, extinguish.
The few instances where some code was contributed are infinitesimally tiny overall. The size of open source code universe makes those Microsoft contributions look like an amoeba compared to the sun.
Except it hasn't been overnight... if you follow some of the Microsoft guys on Twitter you'll see that they are actively trying to change Microsoft's way of thinking.
As a side note, personally I don't think there is an ulterior motive to Microsoft's change of heart with Open Source. Microsoft's found a happy medium between closed source and open source. Notice that software it sells (to end users) remains closed source, while software (or more accurately, libraries) available to developers are being ope
Re: (Score:2)
In terms of time frames, in the real scheme of things, comparatively, over the past 3 decades, this is an over night change. And, even if it works for Microsoft it might not work for open source. Just as easily as they allege change in support of open source that can also change over night.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are living proof that embrace, extend, extinguish works.
Open source was defined many years ago in an effort to ensure that it would not be subjugated and perverted, and that has done it's job for the past 17 years. Microsoft's posted open source license directly conflicts with that definition. Hence, it isn't the real thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft have made several contributions to the Linux kernel...
ORLY? I'm genuinely curious what they have contributed to the kernel.
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Hyper-V kernel extensions
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not very good evidence of a change of heart.
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
ah yes, and hyper v was contributed why again? let's not act like it was out of the goodness of their hearts. It was contributed because it violated the GPL license. [networkworld.com]
It should be noted on this actually, that this speaks volumes about the politeness of open source developers, because they absolutely could have pushed for a lot more to resolve the violation.
Re:Wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Releasing the project under a permissive license means they can let IronPython and IronRuby gradually fade away without taking responsibility for killing them off.
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow! They contributed Linux kernel extensions to let Linux run on their Hyper-V platform! Amazing! Will wonders never cease?
Re: (Score:2)
Their contributions to the linux kernel were only open sourced under pressure, are poorly maintained and only exist to promote their own hypervisor system...
Their other contributions have pretty much all been windows specific, so continuing the trend of trying to lock people in.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. I would think that stabbing someone in the back could also be done just by getting the target into a position where the killer can make him feel good with a hug. A pat on the back, some support, a...SHARP STABBING PAIN OF DEFEAT!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So get off MSFT as the exclusive enemy of "Open Source"
Oh shush you. You big drama-queen. Firstly, Steve Ballmer isn't reading our criticisms and sobbing himself to sleep every night, so don't feel like you have to come to his defence. And no-one's saying they are the only enemy of Free/Open Source software. The reason people have been hopping all over them lately is that for the past 10 years they've been painting the GPL and FOSS as worse problems than AIDS and Cancer combined. They have engaged in some despicable, underhanded and, at times illegal, practice
Re: (Score:2)
I see this is the new party line? This particular bit of revisionism has been especially virulent since the Oracle/Google brouhaha started.
Here's the deal how it really went down: Microsoft killed Java on the Windows platform. They did it by licensing Java from Sun, and then putting Windows extensions in the public namespace, violating their license. And since the license was (among other things) for
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Making a profit by providing a valuable service or product is one thing...
Actively harming your customers and those around them by getting them locked in to your proprietary and often inferior platform is quite another.
Also, proprietary software having to compete with open source is simply part of the market, if someone else can produce a cheaper and superior product than you, then your business model is failing and you will have to resort to underhanded tactics to prop it up.
At the end of the day, thats wh
All available evidence says otherwise (Score:2)
Microsoft is the greedy evil company we think they are, and then some.
Patent bullying, funding the scox scam, astro-turfing, fake TCO studies, fake benchmarking studies, outright lying to the US congress about difficulty of removing msie from windows, outright lying to the EU about difficulty of removing media player from windows, the OOXML scam, having Washington taxpayers pay for $11 million bridge on MS campus. Firing thousands of US workers, and hiring h1bs to replace the US workers, and all the while c