Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Is Bad [updated]
pjones writes: "This just in! Open Source is bad for companies and countries too. In a New York Times article (registration required), John Markoff reports that: "In a speech defending Microsoft's business model, to be given on Thursday at the Stern School of Business at New York University, Craig Mundie, a senior vice president at Microsoft and one of its software strategists, will argue that the company already follows the best attributes of the open-source model by sharing the original programmer's instructions, or source code, more widely than is generally realized." Singled out for particular rebuke and scorn are IBM and the famous GPL and its author Richard Stallman.
Who will be there to cheer Craig on?" See also ESR's dispatch on same. (Read below for update with time and place.)
Update: 05/03 01:55 PM by T : cananian points to this announcement on time and place. The upshot: from noon to 1:30 p.m, in room 1-70 of NYU's Kaufman Management Center (KMEC), 44 West 4th Street.
"Open Source Is Bad", huh? Well, reading that I would guess that the author is implying that Microsoft doesn't like open source. No, that's not true. Microsoft likes open source, very very much - after all, huge portions of their networking system come from open source. Microsoft does not like the GPL. Please take note:
open source != GPL
Much the same that rectangle != square -- a square is indeed a type of rectangle, but by no means is it the only type.
How many shares do you have of MSFT? 100? 1000? Hah! I wipe my ass with that many shares every morning. Let's face it, your total holdings in MSFT amount to basically dick. But I'm going to answer you anyway, just because I'm in that kind of mood.
Don't worry about that little adverse court ruling. We own the appeals court. And the Supreme Court. And fucking George W. Bush, for that matter. Judge Jackson's next judicial assignment will be in the Extreme Northern District of Alaska, rest assured.
And I wouldn't worry about Java either. By the time we get done with Sun, Scott McNealy will be lucky to get a job selling used cars...
Windows XP will succeed...thanks to our new program of "Mandatory Direct Marketing." Every computer user in the country will receive a copy of Windows XP, whether they ask for it or not. If they fail to pay for it, Guido, from our Collections Division, will be coming around to "persuade" them...
And once public opinion turns against those Linux and Open Source hackers (and it will turn against them, no matter how many legislators we have to buy), we can start shipping them all off to our new network of death camps. Did I say "death camps"? I meant "happy camps," where they can be properly reeducated and turn into nice little Windows users who will buy their upgrades when we tell them to.
In conclusion: We don't care. We don't have to. We're Microsoft. Give us your credit card numbers and shut the fuck up.
Sincerely yours,
William H. Gates III
Chairman, Chief Software Architect, and Prince of Darkness
"Microsoft good, open source bad! Microsoft good, open source bad! Microsoft good, open source bad!"
Eric
--
Be who you are...and be it in style!
The GPL was designed to keep free software free. Basically it gives you all the freedom in the world, except for taking away that freedom from others. Okay, I think we all know that.
Now apply the same logic to the intellectual property within the software. Just because everyone can benefit from it doesn't destroy the intellectual property, it is just being shared.
The GPL protects intellectual property from being absorbed by one particular entity, whether it be a person or company or organisation. The GPL was designed to do this.
Proprietary software protects the IP of the individual writing it. GPL is less egoistic. But of course, it's almost a crime anno 2001 not to be egoistic.
The real threat to future innovation and development does not come from Free code.
No, the real problem is when someone has come up with a brilliant idea, spent weeks/months writing it up in an application only to find out that he has "infringed" upon dozens of software patents in the process.
Now that is something that threatens future innovation.
--
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb15CB32EF3AF9C0E5D727
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
As an NYU student studying to get my BFA in Photography and Imaging at Tisch School of the Arts, I can verify nearly all people associated with that school down the block (Stern School of Business) are, in fact, bloodsucking money grubbers. Of course they are teaming up with The Borg. NYU is taking over Manhattan (specifically, the village and union square), Microsoft is taking over your desktop.
Or maybe i'm just jealous that I won't be making six figures after I graduate and paying back $40k in student loans. I'm an artist, I can starve.
Do you expect a university to have Linus Torvalds give a speech on economics to students who are paying nearly $35,000 to learn how to shake hands? No, these are students that attach WORD documents to emails, because "Microsoft is the standard." As far as they are concerned, the exchange of money is what makes the world go 'round. Every machine running linux is another Microsoft employee out of work.
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
To Bill Gates and Steve Balmer.
Stop this bullshit.
Now.
You've just managed to get the stock price back over $70 a share for the first time since Jackson nailed your corporate balls to the wall. You just managed to put out a pretty damn good operating system in the form of Windows 2000. And you're just getting started with .NET, which, yeah, is a Java ripoff, but it's at least a fairly solid idea.
And now, from all appearances, you're ready to shoot yourselves in the foot.
Windows XP? The operating system that'll break every time you install a bit of hardware? This is reminiscent of Commodore when they cut out a piece of their motherboard rather than let users install a part themselves.
FUD campaign against Linux and Open Source? Who are you kidding? Nobody's paying attention to your opinions on the matter anymore, and for good reason. Everyone knows you have a bias; everyone who's paying attention has seen the Halloween Documents; and too many big names (like IBM and Oracle) have embraced Linux, which is pretty much the OSS standard bearer.
This is going to smell like desperation on your parts, and this is going to drive your share price down.
Don't cost me money. Come to your senses. Soon.
ObJectBridge (GPL'd Java ODMG) needs volunteers.
Finding God in a Dog
Microsoft it making this argument from the perspective of (duh) a software company. And yes, OSS, and GPL software does very much undermine some practical aspects of IP.
But, the world is bigger then just software companies. Software is infastructure, and infastructure design must be open so that it can be inspected and independently verified. Putting 'freedom' and politics asside, software needs to be independently verified and approved for safety and reliability reasons.
This independent review could be done by something like a government agency, UL/CSA/ASA etc with a pool of 'anti-virgins' (in the reverse engineering sense), but moving to OSS satisifies this, and is the logical extreem.
Personaly, I realy dont care about having the source code, but knowing that my apps (well, the big, important ones) have had good independent peer review lets me sleep at nights. (well usualy, insomnia tonight...)
John 17:20
First of all, Linux is good for Microsoft; they probably enjoy having an easily identifiable enemy to bash, and rally up against, since so few real MS enemies is left.
But it seems that MS have some trouble with crushing and destroying Linux; First, Linux really isn't a single company that can be killed or bought, or intimidated into submission.
At same time, "everyone" agrees, that Open Source has its advantages, and actually makes pretty good software that works.
The advantages with OSS (Open Source Software) seems so compelling, that even MS must stress, in the middlest of a full scale FUD attack against OSS, that MS software is kind of Open Source (see, a few hardware manufactures, and some Uni's are allowed to peek into some parts of our code). Really mixed signals.
OTOH; This FUD speak, targetting especially the GPL license, really underscores one thing;
Open Source, and OSI approved licenses, like GPL, really are a viable, long term, money making, market gaining, idea and force, or else MS would not bother.
Remember, this is not a random MS employee venting his personal opinions, but part of a carefully corporate campaign (see article). MS PHP's must have met to strategy meetings, made plans, exchanged emails, sought approval from Balmer/Gates?, and put lesser minions into action.
I guess it soon will be season for some serious MS "astro turfing".
You know absolutely nothing about communism. Go here read it and stop foaming at the mouth. BTW - at the last turn of the century it was precisely the communists who believed that "human labor is about to go the way of the dinosaurs".
How we know is more important than what we know.
Bullshit.
Don't get me wrong, I think Java does a good job in certain fields, and a lousy job in others, and I'd say the same thing about every other programming language in existence.
But don't even try and tell me that it wasn't a buisness decision to fight Microsoft. No previous programming language has been marketed to VPs and managers as well as programmers. No previous programming language got prime-time TV advertisements (anybody else remember the "Java has no limits" spot?) and huge billboards next to the downtown highways.
Java has the distinction of being the first programming language with a marketing slogan.
It's a nifty language and I like playing with it. It can do some things that, while certainly not new, are damn useful. But it wasn't a natural language evolution. It was designed to do one thing -- make money for Sun.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Isn't it stran9e how in one complete sentence they can say Open Source has no effect on MS, yet in that same sentence state it has gained ground? If I'm not mistaken MS stands to lose more than any other system since Solaris and SunOS can use open source code.
Again articles like these do nothing more than strengthen open source standing in the market since it gets them exposure without having to spend on marketing, so kudos to MS for continously bashing open source.
Yet at the same time the arguments get pretty boring and redundant at times wouldn't you say
removing the dot in dot comm
Want Root?
[
I do like how you've interpreted the statement though - that they've basically identified the traps and know that their lawyers can get them out of it.
Don't do it! M'Kay?
:)
Still, I have to wonder if ESR is being effective in getting out the message that these things are going to come and that they're so detached from reality, so manipulative in their core, that they should be completely ignored. The problem I see with ESR's write-up is that it's easily construed as an open attack on Microsoft. While he talks about Microsoft's deplorable tactics, it's easy to make a case that he's employing FUD. The image of Microsoft as wanting to steal your data appears at least twice, references to it wanting to keep its greedy hands on its monipoly that is slowly destroying the software industry come about a few times, too. These things all might be true. The fraud accusations may also prove true. Microsoft is a monopoly, and it has been hurting the software industry.
The problem is that most users don't see it that way. Most users don't understand how things were prior to Microsoft's grip and they don't see why Microsoft's hold is such a bad thing (while we're pointing at the lack of good competing products within the commercial space to Microsoft's stuff as demonstrative of how thoroughly Microsoft has damaged the industry, they're pointing at the lack of good alternatives as a good reason for Microsoft to continue). Okay, that's not the problem -- it's more of a cause of the real problem: telling the users how we see it ("how it is") won't change their minds. They will openly and honestly reject your arguments simply because it doesn't mesh with the view from their perspective.
The proper way, of course, is to show them what competition gives them. Show, rather than tell. Telling does nothing, even when your article is specifically about the evils of Microsoft. There's simply not a convicing enough case to be made when the users are wrapped in the cloud of FUD and complacency. Not with words, anyway. So if they're going to reject even the best made attack on Microsoft as it stands alone, what happens to this article? The point of the article was to clue people in on what was going to happen, not attack Microsoft. In the eyes of the commoner (journalists included) not open to the evils of Microsoft, this makes it just another baseless attack on MS.
So while ESR does a good job playing prophet and countering the likely topics of tomorrow's speech, he lets so many people off-the-hook: they don't need to acknowledge these things because they have an easy out--he gives them a convenient way to dismiss the article without thinking about it.
If a corporation is a personhood, is owning stock slavery?
Hmmm... It seems that Craig Mundie's speech has a couple of intents which are logical: justify their closed source model to Wallstreet, and discourage companies from opensourcing existing software products. But I wonder how much that is motivating this speech, as opposed to the hope that people will come to illogical conclusion that they shouldn't use software based on a bad business model...
From the article:
Intellectual property of countries? As far as I'm aware, some public universities hold patents, and that's about as far as any country has intellectual property. And what university has any software patents? Are they trying to imply that, say, by using a GPL'd wordprocessor, any document written with it is "open source"? Yes, many advertising based web sites have bombed (mainly due, as others have pointed out, to the irrational obsession with click-through rates). But giving away software in the hopes of getting support contracts (which many open source companies use) is a different business model than giving away content to gain eyeballs, a model that some companies have managed to make profitable (like Cygnus). Yes, if there's some GPL'd code out there that you'd like to use for a non-GPL'd product, you simply don't use it; seems simple enough to me. And no one is advocating doing anything of the sort as a business model; the only people arguing for whole sale opening of IP are people like RMS, who are morally opposed to IP. All the other opensource gurus point out that you should carefully consider what you should opensource, and how you should do it. Ohhhh boy. He's implying that there's lots of managers/executives who are seriously considering going opensource without knowing anything about the business model repercussions of it, without actually saying so (who did he talk to, about what implications?). Well done, Mr. Mundie, well done! And how many times has this actually happened? Especially with GPL'd software? If so, then Microsoft doesn't really have anything to worry about, do they? Eh? How could this happen? I guess that, say, branch A of a company could GPL it's software, which virally affects the base libraries the entire company uses, so software from branches B to Z of the company get virally affected. But this would assume that: 1) the company is using GPL without being aware of it's viral properties (unlikely), and 2) they can't release their base libraries under LGPL (which would contain the contagion).Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose that you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
4. First we Won (the right to be microsoft free)
3. Then we fought (the hardware manufactures to release specs so that we could support more hardware)
2. Now we are laughing at microsoft for running around waiving their hands and pissing their pants scared.
1. Next we'll ignore them :-)
Stramge. My family used to be good friends with the Mundies a few years ago, especially back when he was the CEO of Alliant. He seemed to be full of praise for X and UNIX then...
And that is called competition, which is a very very bad thing.
Well, if you want to extend the analogy, it's also called a violation of the minimum wage laws. Where is the Department of Labor when we really need them?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I think MS has ever right to question to business model on which open source software is based. As the dot-com fallout out has shown, ideas that look great on paper don't always work so well in the real world. That's not to say that OSS won't be useful or successful, but I think the market will determine that. Apache being a grweat example for OSS.
I'm surprised no one mentioned the comments on OSS in other countries. The quote sounded rather ominous to me:
He said Microsoft was particularly concerned about the inroads that the open-source idea was making in other countries.
"It's happening very, very broadly in a way that is troubling to us," he said. "I could highlight a dozen countries around the world who have open-source initiatives."
This makes OSS sound like a health epidemic in a third world country. What does MS mean by they are "concerned" about OSS in other countries? It sounds ominous and egotistical (not a surprise really) It doesn't sound like they're just referring to companies in other countries, but governments. Government software is one area where in my mind there should be a mandate for open source.
Anyone else notice that they are promoting their "open-source" efforts to business flunkies? Not to the Engineers, who would know better, but the to the business majors who will be making the buying decisions. If you didn't already realize it, it's a little insight into their business model: FUD.
.NET against your wishes. I personally make sure that I am seen to know about computers and what is best for the company and others should too.One good way is to set up a stable network that does exactly what the PHB wants. Thence, some marketing drone gives their speil, afterwards they come to you saying "What do you think of...?"
Whoa there. I was with you until the last word. They USE FUD, correct, but they know quite well it aint the techos who hold control of the purse strings. They go for the accountants, the Execs, the people who sign off the cheques. Most are technical illiterate and easily FUD'ed. Microsoft sales and marketing know this. Why should they spruke to technical people when we dont or wont buy their product? Sell to the people who really matter, the people with the chequebook. If we are lucky, we can get to a postition to counter Microsoft marketing, but that takes things like political skill and gaining respect enough so that your word can matter
If you dont, you will be ending up installing XP and
"Old Rallydrivers never die - they just fail to book in on time"
How about just thinking of the GPL as a corporation?
(before I go on, I don't know if anyone else uses this analogy, so I don't mean to steal anyone else's idea here.)
Anyway lets call the company "GPL Inc." GPL Inc. produces proprietary software, just like any other normal company. Funny thing is, the cost of all this proprietary software to the public is $0. And just like any normal evil corporation, there is no way in HELL that they are going to let you see their code unless you are an employee.
But everything's okay, because it's REALLY EASY to get a job at GPL Inc., you need not even fill out an application. Downside is the pay sucks, and the dental plan just isn't going to happen any time soon. By working for GPL Inc., you have access to the source of their vast collection of proprietary software. Just like an employee of a normal company, you can work on that software and improve it. But since you're an employee of GPL Inc. whenever you work on that software, all the work you do is the property of GPL Inc.
If you're company sells Linux boxes, you're just reselling software from GPL Inc. If your employees work on that software, they're being contracted out to GPL Inc.
So herein lies the problem: GPL Inc. is a massive international corporation. They just might write more software and have more programmers than even MS does. They write some of the best software in the world and people are starting to realize it. They have partnerships with all the big players in the industry, with the obvious exception.
And that is called competition, which is a very very bad thing.
--
"The Red Cross should be destroyed! They are taking away valuable business from our Doctors and our relief workers! Their volunteers utilize anti-business practices in what they called 'helping' their and other 'communities' while taking away the opportunity from all the starving doctors and workers around the US! We must act now to purge this ugly system from our country as it promotes communistic ideals and is not the 'American Way'."
Honestly, that's what Microsoft sounds like. What is so wrong about people volunteering to do something worthwhile? They enjoy it and provide something (often) useful. The GPL is there as a safety measure against such things as people freeloading and taking someone else's hardwork, adding to it, closing it, then not giving it back. The only problem is, that's exactly what Microsoft WANTS to do with it. It's like, if someone volunteered for the Red Cross and they needed to help clear someplace a ways away and they flew you by plane there, they'd sure want you to help clean up if you volunteered, instead of just getting a free plane ride. Look at Win2k's use of the FreeBSD TCP/IP stack: Free plane ride to where they need to be. No agreement to do any work.
Just my two cents
--------------------
Craig Mundie, a senior vice president at Microsoft and one of its software strategists, will argue that the company already follows the best attributes of the open-source model by sharing the original programmer's instructions, or source code, more widely than is generally realized
I realize that in some *very limited* circumstances, MS does share their source code, but to make a comment such as this is just plain deceitful. To make a comment such as what Craig is saying, that MS shares their source code "more widely than is generally realized," is akin to saying that I can pay down part of my student loan by submitting one cent to the Financial Aid office. Technically it's true, but in practice it's just plain BS.
Question for Craig: If, as you say, Microsoft shares its source code "more widely than is generally realized," then why don't any freelance programmers have access to it? For example, why doesn't the Wine team have access to it (not even one member)? And so on.
Leave it to Microsoft to make up stories like this.
[end rant]
---
Am I the only Slashdotter who is sick and tired of losing 9000 karma points every time they moderate?
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
Yes, partially due to the fact that each vendor was restricted from building on the work of others, and partially due to the fact that there were multiple vendors. You won't see "Bob's Win32", simply because Microsoft actively works to prevent such compatibility.
Once solid platform-independent implementations of the various UNIX tools became available, people began switching to them. For all the complaining people do about the various Linux-based OSen, they are remarkably consistent at the most basic user level (drop me on any GNU system and I will be able to at least find my way around the system, write code, etc). And this toolkit is available thanks to the GNU GPL and the enthusiasm RMS roused in the various developers.
Secondly, free software actually enables integration with closed platforms. For example, see Samba or Cygwin, which allow tight integration between Windows and Unix (no thanks to the "open" and "developer-friendly" Microsoft). And the first thing I and most other people do when confronted with a fresh Solaris box is to install a decent userland.
Uh huh. Sure. Let's take the WWW as an example, since everyone lately seems convinced it's the most innovative thing since sliced bread. It was invented by a guy at CERN, and Mosaic, the first massively popular graphical client, was written at NCSA. Since Web stuff became a commercial thing, exactly what "innovation" have we recieved? Bigger and more offensive ads and horrifically noncompliant HTML, that's what.
--
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
1. They ignore you.
2. They laugh at you.
3. They fight you.
4. You win.
Linux spent approximately a decade at step 1. Step 2 was hit this past year (I think) when Microsot ran an ad featuring mutated penguins in Germany. With these remarks, coupled with Allchin's earlier ones (Free Software being un-American and all that), it looks like Linux has entered step 3.
Pity. I was hoping step 2 would last a little longer, but I guess Microsoft isn't in a "laughing" mood these days.
TheFrood
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
Seriously, these guys are idiots relying on sound bites. ESR and RMS would eat these idiots for lunch in a philosophical debate on software. They can't even sort out the differences between Open Source and the GPL.
It would definitely be in Red Hat's best interest to do this kind of thing, if for no other reason than to just say "Red Hat" alot and brand like crazy. (Microsoft is a master of this, just count the number of times you read MS, Windows, or Office brand names within an MSNBC article related to the tech industry) Given what IBM and Sun could gain, I can't see why they wouldn't do it either...
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Huh, I like that - like Word 95 documents load into Word 97 and still look the same HUH! And do you rekon you can ever actually get the document to look the same again? No chance!
I think that open-source inherently encourages compatibility ... If one version of a program is compatible with previous/other versions and the other versions arent, which do you think people will use?