What Should Microsoft's Open Source Strategy Be?

JWinterboy asks: "I'm guessing that everyone here has a valid criticism of Microsoft's attacks on, and approach towards the Open Source model. To me, that begs the question of what we think would be an "appropriate" reaction from Microsoft towards the Open Source model. It doesn't have a service arm, so IBM's approach isn't really viable. At the same time, non-service related business models haven't fared very well. What would we like to see Microsoft do? How can it work with the Open Source community, leverage its resources, and still make a buck?"

Comments

Simple!

[BurritoWarrior]

1. Tell everyone that Unix/Linux is bad.
2. Create a web site to explain the way out of the Unix trap.
3. Host web site on BSD.
4. Remove foot from mouth.
5. Go back to drawing board.

Should? Could...

[WolfWithoutAClause]

There's a number of approaches:

a) IBM approach- GPL windows and keep office closed
b) keep everything closed and make GPL illegal by changing the law
c) find a way to crack GPL legally (find/make a hole in it that makes it unefforceable somehow; hey OJ got off first time around ;-) )
d) buy Linus Torvalds/Red Hat off [perhaps they have already ;-)]
e) create their own Linux distro add closed source interfaces and stuff office and IE on top
f) abandon the software domain and put their $30+G into other businesses
g) spread out into other applications; move away from the OS
h) Buy off Richard Stallman
i) kill em; kill all of them (order hits on main GPL proponents)
j) who cares? let's just buy a small Island somewhere instead. Australia?

I don't get it

[jsse]

They've already opensourced W2k in Russia, why don't they do the same in US?

Re:Microsoft Linux

[Com2Kid]

"I'm missing something here..... (apt-get install xserver)"

How to install drivers on windows (the more or less insecure way, but hell, executables by their very nature. . . .)

goto manufacturers web site

goto driver page

click driver

select 'run from'

wait

wait

wait

wish you had broadband (hahah, I do. Yah!)

Click yes

Click next

Click next

Click "I agree that j00 0wn my s0ul"

Click done

enjoy.

Ok so A LOT of clicking is involved, but it is MUCH more intuitive them guessing at WTF you need. :) It is just downloading an EXE and running it from your browsers cache, then letting clicking through the standard boring 'yada yada yada' screens that almost any driver have.

Windows also has the advantage that the WORST that can possibly go wrong is that you have to hit a key at startup and select use last best config. Handy that. :)

Umm, what exactly IS the worst that installing an improper driver under Linux can do to ya anyways? I know that under the MS system that it USED to be able to cause hardware damage, but that is pretty much none existent now (as windows is far more likely to shit out then go on running hardware with the wrong driver, or it will shitout when some serious incompatability is found, take your pick. :) ) Windows actualy typicaly tends to just disable that singular device now days more often then it refuses to boot.

Re:play fair

[Tackhead]

> [Microsoft says] " Standards are the means by which software can compete on the basis of merit, and Microsoft takes advantage of the fact that pragmatically, a market leader's de facto standard speaks much louder than any written document."
>
> What are they supposed to do? It's hard to innovate when a standard is set in stone.

"I love the way Microsoft follows standards.
In much the same manner that fish follow migrating caribou."
- Paul Tomblin, as seen in USENET, in one of my all-time favorite .sigs.

Re:Follow Sun's Example

[Lictor]

You haven't dealt with Sun lately, have you?

They're the 'dot' in

rm -rf /.