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?"
With W2K, we're talking of more than 10 millions line of code or so. Even after slashing the bloat, using this code is mostly untractable. It just useful for going around this or that bug of this or that API, once in a while.
.doc, .xls, etc.) and its protocols, and to make them open source or public domain. That would introduce a healthy yet controllable dose competition for MSFT and clean them of their monopolistic sins, but it would also place MSFT in the role of the Great Arbitrer of De Facto Standards and bring them a lot of long lost good will.
I'd rather prefer MSFT to really document its APIs, its file formats (including
In a domain where planned obsolescence is the rule of the Game, setting the standards (and giving them away) is a very desirable place where to stand and it's nearly as efficient as close formats to maintain a quasi-monopoly. Just look at IBM, Cisco or Intel. MSFT would also sit as a benevolent dictator rather than a ruthless tyran.
Why should the free software community care about Microsoft? Who cares if Microsoft cannot find a way to coexist with free software?
Is anybody curious about who JWinterboy is and why he's asking?
Hmmm... High uid, no comments. Could it be that MS is asking Slashdot for it's opinion?
Mr. Microsoft, I expect you to die.
Apologies where they are due...
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061