More Mayhem From MSFT's Mundie

Cally writes "Further embarrasingly lame FUD from Craig Mundie of Microsoft. This time, he claims the GPL is at odds with 'commercialization' of software, without which the government gets a smaller tax take. Looks like he's really talking to legislators there ... He also knocks the Sun-led Liberty Alliance Passport SSO service as 'this notion that the world should be offered an alternative.' An alternative?"

Comments

Microsoft is concerned about Taxes?

[Bonker]

In 2001, MS payed *no* income tax because they were able to deduct the value of employee stock options and 401k plans.

FUD

[crumbz]

I am an IT manager at a technical services company. I just had a call this morning from Microsoft-Great Plains (the 4th one in a week) wanting to come in and demo their product. I told them no, we don't use Microsoft software. The salesman laughed as if he didn't believe me and made a remark to the effect that our company would soon be out of business due to the software we run (or do not).

Alternative software save our company money, time (money) and offers us tremendous flexibility with our workflow. Why do I want to pay Microsoft $2,000 a seat for licensing when I can get the equivalent performance for approx $400 a seat?

Rhetorical question, I know.....

He does have a point...

[SlashChick]

"If there is not commercialization there, a company can only exist based on ancillary manufacturing or services."

Please raise your hand if you develop software for a living; that is, you support yourself and/or your family by developing software.

Now, keep your hand raised if you believe that your company could offer the same software that you helped to create as a free, open-source download and still keep you employed.

Folks, there is room for both free software and commercial software in this world, made obvious by the point that a lot of us (including myself) work on commercial software during the day and work on our own interesting free products on our off-hours.

Those who create free software often do so to fulfill a personal need. Those who create commercial software do so to fulfill not only that person's needs, but other people's. Not all software needs to be commercialized (Eric S. Raymond's point of view), and not all software needs to be free (Craig Mundie's point of view.)

They are both right to some degree. What you have to figure out is where you lie in this continuum. Do you want all software to be free (thereby putting yourself in the awkward position of having to find some other way to support yourself), or do you want more software to be commercial? Most of us are probably somewhere in the middle, and I don't think we need to hear anything more from Mundie or Raymond on this -- we just need to make up our own minds. We gain nothing from flaming the extremists.

Thank you, drive through. :P

Re:He does have a point...

[gosand]

I think you are right. I also think that a lot of people will agree with you - except Mundie and his cronies. They don't want open source to exist. Some people (RMS) think that all software should be free, but some other people don't care what Microsoft does (Linus). Microsoft is trying to defend against something that is not attacking it. Open Source software is doing it's thing, and if people want to adopt it, it will get adopted. Open Source is not a tangible thing that can be controlled. THAT is what scares the sheep in Redmond, that with all their money and power, they can't control Open Source Software. Yet.

Taxes?

[Waffle Iron]

If the government is doesn't get enough tax revenue because of the GPL, all it has to do is raise the tax rates. Duh.

It won't come to that, though, because I'll spend the money that I saved avoiding expensive software on something else. The government will get just as much money. I'll have the software I need and whatever other nice things I bought with my saved money.

The only party that doesn't win in this scenario is the world's richest man.

Re:Comments

[Thagg]

I went to the World Congress web site, looking for more context to the comments, as I agree with erasmus_on above that it seemed likely that there was more to Mundie's statements than reported. Unfortunately, there is next to zero content at the site -- it appears to be more of a junket than a conference (I'll admit that this may be common.)

What I did find interesting is the last paragraph of Mundie's bio, pointing out that he was on the team at Data General that were working on the Fountainhead Project, the bad guys in Kidder's The Soul of a New Machine. This is confirmed by a Red Herring article.

One can just wonder at the FUD that was sent between the two parts of DG, as Mundie was first stretching his wings...

thad

Ripping Mundie's Comments

[RailGunner]

"The problem with general public license advocates is that they don't understand that people need the opportunity to commercialize software,"

As a developer, I want to get paid for code I write, especially in the case of a proprietary application. For example, say you write an application that.. oh I dunno.. figures out car payments based on a number of different variables. You should be able to close that source code and sell your application to people, since you put in the effort to write it. I don't think any developers in slashdot will disagree, we all have families to feed.

However, there has to be a difference between the Operating System and Applications for that OS. Making the OS GPL'd makes sense - it evens the playing field for all developers, and forces there to be competition among applications. Let the best apps win. Competition, of course, leads to better products for consumers. Unfortunately, Mundie's NOT talking about applications, he's talking about Windows, an Operating System. And the scary thing to remember is that Microsoft takes applications, and ties them to the OS and claims that the application is part of the OS. (Internet Explorer being a famous example). If Windows "loses" to Linux, as I think it inevitably will, then Microsoft's applications such as Office, etc, have to compete with products such as KOffice and StarOffice and MS's market share will go down.

"If there is not commercialization there, a company can only exist based on ancillary manufacturing or services. If commercialization was cut down, investors would not support research and development in the IT sector, less projects would be developed, less taxes paid and the government would have less money to run universities, and all the other things that governments do,"

Not really. Instead of writing Windows Apps a lot of companies would just write Linux Apps. If no one ran Windows, would it stop Blizzard from writing, say, Starcraft 2 for Linux? No, of course not. The only thing this effects is companies that develop Operating Systems, and more specifically, Microsoft. Keep in mind Microsoft tries to blur the distinction between OS and Application. If you can't sell an OS, you have to sell support. Application Development is a whole different world. You're not selling a system, you are selling a tool for a system, whether it's a browser, text editor, IDE, or a game.

"Rather than form a federation with Microsoft and work with what we had already created, there was this notion that the world should be offered an alternative"

Yeah that's capitalism, Mundie. Competition always breeds the best products for consumers. Or would you like it if everyone still drove a Ford Model T because there was no competition? Of course, we already know you want everyone to only run Windows and Microsoft Applications on windows. Or perhaps, Mundie isn't so sure about the superiority of his product?

your head on the ground and your feet in the air..

[twitter]

For all of the talk about the GPL and commercial software being compatible, it is ironic seeing the countless "down with evil commercial software!" tirades on here (almost always unjust, but such details as facts elude the GPL crusaders).

OK, down with evil comercial software. It is evil and stupid to make people rework everyting every two years so you can sell them a new word processor. It is evil and stupid to intentionally obsolete older equipment for the same reasons. Money spent on waste is a drain to the economy as it should be spent on more important things like education, roads and all those other things that bring people joy and make the world better. The new Intelectual Property Service Economy is supposed to eliminate waste, not create it.

Microsoft's notions stand most of the above thought on their head, and it looks like they are going for regulated monopoly status. Why else would this blithering idiot be shouting stuff about the death of this view of comercial software in terms that he hopes legislators will pick up on? He's hoping that dumb laws like SSSCA will save his outmoded and failing company from extinction. I'll quote him for fun:

If there is not commercialization there, a company can only exist based on ancillary manufacturing or services. If commercialization was cut down, investors would not support research and development in the IT sector, less projects would be developed, less taxes paid and the government would have less money to run universities, and all the other things that governments do.

I'm sorry, that's got to be the dumbest thing I've read all year. Like the US government will die, Universities will shut down and all IT will shutter to a halt if MicroShaft can't make money.

Now back to you:

Having said that: Any company that touches GPLd code with a 20 foot pole needs to ferret out the zealots in their midst.

Thanks for inviting a witch hunt, but I think it's going the other way. As M$ grasps more control, as the BSA breaks more people, as it all costs more and does less, M$ IT is taking a well deserved beating. The simple fact is that Microsoft is no longer competitive, has never been innovative, and is now too risky (both viruses and BSA hastles) to be tollerated. People who advocate Microsoft "solutions" to problems are going to be seen as stuck in the past, clueless or bribed. You would do well to start learning software that works rather than contincuing to work software that sucks. You will not be able to blame others for your failure as the choices on M$ platforms goes to zero. As the next wave of viruses, expoits and auto updates wracks your company, you will be held accountable.

Don't confuse my advice about software choices you should make with the forced extortion Microsoft plans. If you are dumb enough to continue your relationship with Microsoft, so be it. Choice is good. Latter I can say, "I'm so happy you failed," as you are so obviously malicious. Microsoft however would like to eliminate all choice by law.

How many Slashdot stories have their been now crusading against some GPL violation or another?

Name one company or person that has been ruined. There are many software comapnies that have been ruined unfairly by MicroShaft. Since judgement was rendered, it's a matter of public record. Many more smaller companies have been ruined by the BSA, individuals have been ruined, even public school systems have had hundreds of thousands of dollars extorted from them by a company that has obviously not been harmed. Ask yourself why a company with $9 billion would have to steal $250,000 from imporvereshed schools systems like Los Angles and Philidelphia. I don't have to hide my copy of NVI and that's one of the reasons I use it.

For all of the talk about the GPL and commercial software being compatible/I>

They are not compatible. Comercial software restricts your rights. Free software seeks to replace comercial software. No one is going to force you to do anything, but you might feel stupid running expensive, insecure, privacy violating software, when technically superior free alternatives are available. In that way, the makers of restrictive software are doomed.

...you try this trick, but your head collapses because there is nothing inside.