Slashdot Mirror
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?"
They should:
1. Open source all their software products
2. Make everyone cash in their stocks.
3. Dissolve their corporation.
Oh, and I want a public apology from Bill. Is that too much to ask for?
What's that I hear? The sweet sound of silence. What is your particular reason that the GNU philosophy of free software is pro-capitalism? Oh. "No particular reason?" I see now... double standards. Show me a company that actually makes money using the GPL and I will show you a fraud a leech or a hypocrit. Or I can also show you the deceased.
Give Microsoft a valid reason to use the GPL that benefits them instead of just a community of greed and you will have a friend for life. Otherwise get off your freeloading ass and get out there and create clones of the software that Microsoft makes, but licensed under the GPL.
Dijkstra Considered Dead
But unfortunately, it is not OSS for the masses. This is not a strong argument for OSS over Proprietary methods. Apple is not the "Think Different" OSS solution. Contrary to their hard marketed image, they are the most closed company of all. They own the hardware AND the software. Shure, they use FreeBSD but so does Microsoft in their TCP/IP stack.
It is unfortunate that so many true OSS Developers have begun effectivly working for Apple for free.
The OSS Community will never see a scrap of benefit from Apple.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
First, start with a dismissal of this asburd court case. Make it clear that unless the case is immediately dismissed, Microsoft will no longer sell or support any product in the USA. Delist MS from the American stock market (or threaten to) and refuse to sell product to the international operations of any company that continues to list on an American stock market. Losing (or the threat of losing) every major successful tech company causes a market crash that makes people remember 1929 as blip. This means the elimination of all major American PC producers and the elimination (or elimination of expansion) of any business that depends on MS technology (almost all of them). Make certain the it is known that when the American gov't buckles, any PC company that sold alternate OS's will never sell an MS product again. Likewise with companies that flirted with alternate solutions are to be denied access to technology.
:-). If it actually look like somehow someone's making some money on the non-intel based systems, buy them and burn 'em. After that, only fanatics willing to pay 5 or 10 times what an Windows machine cost will be running them. (By this point, non-MS companies have no economies of scale to subsidize Linux sales.)
:-).
Once the USA is looking at a depression to make the 1930's look like a walk in the park, we can assume that the gov't will see reason. (Of course, this costs MS a pretty penny, but they can live on international sales alone for as long as it takes.)
Once that's over with, it's time to party. First, buy Sun and Apple and immediately kill them. Make it publically known that any possible competitor that starts rising through the ranks wil be bought and their customers orphaned. It will only cost you a lot once or twice. After that, nobody is going to bother buying from a competitor. If it's any good, your assured of buying an orphan-to-be product.
Now finally we come to the open-source strategy... *phew*. Make a deal with the hardware manufacturers. CPUs, chipsets and motherboards are modified so that they either run MS Windows only (MS Win ROMS anyone), or you can never run Windows. Hardware companies can choose: either MS alone, or never. If they don't like it, there's a dozen others ready to take their place. Good luck living off the Linux market alone
Large company licenses require companies to justify any non-MS tech investments or face double or triple costs. MS will of course, approve of tech investments in fields where they don't have offerings.
Finally, modify Windows so that it will not run non-approved software, except for high-priced development systems that require strict licensing and some special hardware. A software redistribution license requires strict approval by MS, $100,000 testing fee, 15% royalties and a right to allow MS to purchase the software at an agreed upon price.
Lastly, once companies are used to renting their software yearly, make the cost of an MS license (for public companies) 1-2% of outstanding stock in lieu of payment. Those that wish to forego the expense of course have the option of ceasing to use computers.
After 50 years, MS stock is a rather more real currency that the US dollar and Open Source software, it a weird memory from a time when individuals programmed.
Oh, you meant what would *we* like to see MS's OSS strategy be. Oops