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?"
I bet you can't wait til they have their own distribution.
Personally, I don't see how Microsoft -- a closed and proprietary company -- could ever cooperate with Open Source Software. Their shared sorce program is a weak attempt, not at opening up, but increasing market share in one area where they're lacking. Yeah, that's a real open source attitude: present some code to the public to get more money.
Besides, Microsoft has already made clear that the GPL is a threat to capitalism; hence, their desire to have nothing to do with it.
Facing GPL'ed competition that they can't buy and assimilate - and not being able to GPL their own software without loosing their revenue stream - they are stuck.
If I was in charge of Microsoft - I'd attempt to subvert the legal/patent system in order to kill the GPL.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
I'd be satisfied if they stopped breaking the anti-trust laws. Beyond that, let the market decide. Open source will win in the market. I think MS knows that and that's why they're increasingly afraid.
Miko O'Sullivan
Microsoft says the opensource model doesn't work because they don't want an opensource model. It might be inconcievable to the rest of us, but there are some people that favor an extreme capitalist system and don't want software, among other things, to be shared for free. If microsoft doesn't like that, good for them. My only critizicism of microsoft is how they berate other ways to thinking, specifically opensource. It's this closed minded approach to others that really makes microsoft the evil giant many people think of.
First thing they must learn is the correct usage of begging the question. Sheesh
"Einstein argued that [...] God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software engineer." ~ Brooks
I think Apple has proved Open Source's usefulness for businesses and the general consumer market. Yes, their license is strictly controlled, but look at the innovation that has come out of it. They have the first and only viable "Unix for the Masses(tm)".
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Check it out: Microsoft Consulting Services.
They built GAP.com, among other things. Operations in 30+ countries and all that stuff...
Kevin Fox
If Microsoft's products are worth the money, then people will buy them without being coerced to by incompatible file formats, protocols, and APIs. Their strategy should be good citizenship in the software community (open AND closed source), by making a good faith effort to make interoperability possible.
I think a lot of the animosity toward Microsoft comes from the obstacles they put in the way of fair competition. 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.
They can't. Open the OS code - exposing all the hidden APIs - would remove the advantage that their office suite and other software has.
OTOH, it might work anyway, since everyone wants office nowdays. I can't remember the last user to request Word Perfect. If they open up - expose more functionality and make it even easier to program for they might win mind share.
Just wait till some crappy band steals your nic.
And fully open APIs (a la Sun) wouldn't hurt them at all.
Actually MS does have a large service segment. According to their 2001 annual report 22,500 of the 47,600 employees work in sales, marketing, and support. And if anyone can figure out how to make money on services it would be MS.
Let Microsoft hire some strategists to solve this problem. Why should we solve it for them for free?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I'd have sworn it said, "Open Source", not "Linux". Hint: *BSD? Try to stay on topic.
"I could go on and on and on, but the conclusion is clear. Linux is not an option for any one who seeks a professional OS with high performance, scalability, stability, adherence to standards, etc."
Oh, but ME adheres to standards? Whose? Where's that SMP copy of 98 again? Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
"According to Linux advocates, an alternative to EXT2FS would be ReiserFS. Unfortunately, ReiserFS is still in beta stage. This means it is not intended for production use (although according to many Linux advocates this shouldn't be a problem, which makes me wonder how (little) valuable they find your data)."
Straw man. 10 minutes in the barrel for you, buddy.
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
why not open up the code for the stuff they don't make money on? heh open up IE, Messenger, etc. Don't allow anyone to distibute their own versions, but let people look and submit bug fixes etc. It would not be a huge step, but i'd be a step in gaining people's trust
I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
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.
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 $30+G into other businesses
g) spread out into other applications; move away from the OS
h) Buy off Richard Stallman
i) kill em; kill all of them (order hits on main GPL proponents)
j) who cares? let's just buy a small Island somewhere instead. Australia?
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"1. Steal Code bully someone around buy someone out. ...
2.
3. Profit
What MS should do to work well with Open Source:
a) Document API's thoroughly, and keep the docs up to date
b) Standards: Microsoft is frequently the first one to implement a standard or to make it mainstream. As an example, XSLT comes to mind. AFAIK, IE was the first browser to support XSLT. As the first big boys there, they usually claim the right to make modifications to a standard or to fill in details in the standard. They could win a lot of goodwill merely by consult other companies and open source developers before as they implement the standard. This will greatly reduce (though probably not eliminate) the feeling of railroading that we all feel when MS' software doesn't follow standards, and we all have to deal with it.
c) Document and admit mistakes and bugs. One of the most infuriating things about Microsoft software, is that it either doesn't do what it says, as in undocumented behavior and bugs, or cryptic error messages saying things don't work unless the OS is configured right (which is true ipso facto, but somewhat accusatory, and certainly not helpful). I think this happens mostly because they can get away with it, and writing thorough documentation for your programs is not nearly as satisfying or financially rewarding as designing and writing the code itself. They could again improve goodwill if they were responsive to outside developer's questions about these bugs and behaviors, rather than being dismissive.
I'm sure there are more, but these sure would make it easier for an outsider to like Microsoft.
Embrace and extend!
bash$
It's really all they do anyhow. I suggest that
they open their source.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
A good April Fool's Joke.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
They should lay down and die. In this way, the balance between good and evil might not just be restored, but swung in the direction of "good" for awhile.
They continue to write their closed source, proprietary software, but they adopt open protocols, without trying to co-opt them with hidden API's. They stop adding Feature Bloat, and get serious about security, and the overall quality of their products.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
The principle difficulty with using Microsoft products is that they seem barely capable of communicating with anything but other Microsoft products. I'd like MS to consider putting all libraries useful for interoperability available in open-source (without the useless licence) form. That way, well, if their software was better than the free version one could use them, and MS and non-MS software could be used together...
Basically it doesn't seem that Microsoft can totally change to an open-source strategy now. Even if they weren't too embarassed/unrepentantly monopolistic to want to.
I don't really see that they would open-source the entirety of Office, but it'd be nice if Microsoft were to make owning Office an option rather than a restrictive locked-in technology (yeah, I know. Word viewer available, inconsistent specs available. Not quite the same as working source code).
In any case, if the arguments about Linux's unsuitability for the desktop are correct, they have nothing to fear - if Linux users were to create Word documents or WMV or whatever with the code they were graciously permitted to use, the average human being would prefer to buy a nice user-friendly copy of Windows and view them on that.
Of course, if somebody were to create a piece of word processing software that happened to be better than Word and utterly interoperable, they'd lose out, but we all know that'd never happen (yeah, right).
Open Source any piece of software that they claim to no longer publicly support. Need support for 95? Found a bug in 98? Sorry, you can either fix the problem yourself or upgrade to XP. Your choice. I wouldn't mind that.
[o]_O
They have a whole friggin open source OS (Darwin) which they have grafted their own closed source technology (displayPDF, QuickTime, CoreAudio, etc), and are selling for $130, or bundling with their Macs.
They also have an open source Darwin Streaming Server, and a complementary closed source QuickTime Streaming Server. They bundle Apache as their HTTP server, as well.
What can Microsoft do that would be similar?
How about release the DirectX library as open source? However, use their own in house optimization-compilation technology to ensure that their own DX libs are 10% or 15% faster than anything out there... IE, outinnovate the competition, themselves?
Or release their older Office programs as open source? Sell newer, more advanced copies, but allow the general public to self support and modify their older versions? Of course, again, the key is to out innovate yourself to convince people to buy the newest version instead of incrementally updating and fixing the older, free source version.
Or rather, release a Office Core, which allows you to compile a very basic Office devoid of nifty features... though this might backfire, as people don't generally use 80% of the features in Office, do they?
GPL Deconstructed
First of all, the phrase "begs the question" does NOT mean "raises the question". This is not a post that will only correct grammar, so please bear with me.
I think MS should stop attacking Open Source in the market and cite it as the competition the MS detractors have been calling for. Until Open Source starts pulling in more than a couple % of the desktop market, I don't think they have to worry about it being REAL competition, but APPARENT competition might actually do MS some good (as far as public image).
"Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
(sarcasm mode) It has always worked. Release new office, IE etc using a few undocumented (uncommented) API's. Include them in the documentation 5 years later as a documentation correction. That would keep the competition about 5-1/2 years behind. (/sarcasm mode) Basicaly change nothing. Promise open source and provide some of it only with the published API's keeping the ace up the sleeve as usual. (protect the OS but make developement dependent on only published MS middleware API's) Send out updates late and only after MS has developed the latest and greatest middleware bundles in the OS. API's to use MS middleware would be documented and commented to make it the new adopted standard therby keeping the underlying OS a requirement for all developer applications.
The truth shall set you free!
Personally I don't think they could do it. See the movie Revolution OS, which has ESR, RMS, Linus T, and Bruce P. They actually dealt with Billy gates back in teh 70's about this issue. Billy said "Open Source is a bad business model" back then. How can anyone make money off of it. It is a good movie to see if you want a better understanding of where they all were coming from.
Only 'flamers' flame!
It's clearly possible for Microsoft to package all the sources together
for all the programs that go into making Windows XP, and sell it.
It's easy to understand not releasing the copyright,
and it would cost more to produce the source CDs than XP,
But you can be sure a lot of software companies would buy a copy,
even at ten times the price.
Once you realize why Microsoft doesn't do that,
you will realize why Microsoft won't ever willingly
work with the open source community.
Microsoft's best response is to allow their code to be user patchable. I have been thinking about this possibility for some time now and I hope Microsoft is too greedy to think about it. Here is a response that, I believe, we in the Open Source Camp will find very hard to meet.
If Microsoft does this, it will have the benefits of the open source philosophy and still make money selling the base products.
they should just compete in a fair way without trying to sneak in standard changes, without punishing distributors that stock OS and without crying to the govt.
They should compete the way software companies are meant to compete - by making better software.
They have enough money they should be able to give os a good run.
Firstly, you have to recognize that while closed-sourced software may be unethical and unfair to consumers, that's not a companies concern. A company's mandate is to do whatever they can that is within the law to maximize profit to the advantage of their shareholders. That's their legal obligation.
So, that said, you need an open-sourced strategy which will both adhere to some of the ideal behind the Open Sourced and Free Software movements, but also give the company a reasonable expectation to make money. So here's my proposal:
1. Companies should release all software under a modified version of the GNU GPL...call it the PGNU GPL license for Proprietary GNU GPL license. This license would be identical to the GNU GPL except it would state that redistribution may only occur to current owners of the software. That is, you could only redistribute the entire source to current owners of the software, who paid the company for it. A simple verification system could be used; i.e., requires you to enter a number to prove you actually own it, like your credit card numbr, w/c ppl wouldn't want to spread throughout the web to allow others to access it also.
2. Release some important critical parts under the pure GNU GPL.
3. Piecemeal, release the rest of the software under the GNU GPl.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Here are some random ways MS could cooperate with open-source:
.NET to a standards body, and guarantee that they will not ever patent any of it, so the MONO project has a more certain future.
.
MS should document every API and protocol. That documentation should include BSD-licensed or public-domain reference implementations.
They should either fix their lame POSIX implementation so Cygwin isn't needed, or contribute to Cygwin.
They should work to ensure that Visual C can use GCC as its compiler, and that anything that the Visual C compiler can build can also be built by gcc.
They should include a rootless X Window server in future versions of Windows so that Unix (open and closed source) software can be ported to Windows more easily.
For network tools they maintain (ping, tracert), they should switch to the FreeBSD or Gnu tools, and synchronize their trees.
They should contribute to cfdisk, fdisk and the vfat tools to make their output completely compatible with windows. Or they could open-source their own "fdisk" and "format" tools so they could be ported to Linux and xBSD.
They should discourage developers from creating IE-only web pages, encouraging developers to follow web standards instead. This will make it easier on the open-source browser developers.
They should make their "web fonts" copyright-free: Andale Mono, Georgia, Verdana, Arial, even Times New Roman would make great cross-platform standards.
They could also make some of their patents royalty-free for open-source software.
They could also submit all of
I could go on, but I'd better not. .
The whole conclusion of the DoJ suit was that they'd made their bucks illegaly. If they can't continue to be profitable without adopting a legal business model, that's not our problem. If that means that they're going to lose a whole lot of money, then they damn well should have thought of that before breaking the law. We, the People, don't owe ANYONE a living, much less an illegal monopoly. If they are too lazy and whiny to change, then they don't deserve to be in business. AT&T had to do a lot after 1984, and they're still here today.
They've already opensourced W2k in Russia, why don't they do the same in US?
It would also mean the end of illegally tieing their OS to their apps. They won't give up that advantage in a hurry.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"It goes against my better judgement to take issue with your statement, but my education in free market systems brings to light one question:
If people don't like Microsoft and their products, why are they in business?
I believe totally and completely in free markets and that the consumer wins in such situations. If you agree with this line of thinking, Microsoft must be doing something correctly in order to stay in business. They must be providing something of significant worth to the consumer otherwise people would fail to purchase their product and thus put them out of business. It's this simple. You can confuse the subject to make things look better from an anti-microsoft view, but that's not the issue. The issue is that if MS didn't provide something people want, they would cease to exist.
I think that we all, myself included, fail to realize some times that MS is providing what most people want, most of the time.
-JAB
BTW: I don't user Windows for much of anything and hate it with a passion. This is just food for thought.
GUIs are like diapers, everyone grows out of them eventually.
I'd make all of the underpinnings of the OS open source, but keep the display layer closed, as well as the widget set, in order to keep people using the MS experience.
Kinda vaguely what Apple's doing with OS X, making Aqua closed, but the rest kinda open.
Note that Apple is first and foremost a hardware company; the software is the icing on the hardware cake. This is why it makes sense for them to Open Source the ici^H^H^Hsoftware; it adds value to the hardware. Besides, Darwin won't run on anything else *but* their hardware, so more downloads means people need more hardware.
Microsoft, on the other hand, sells only sofware and is thus dependant on controlling the distribution of their milkco^Wsoftware packages.
There is, of course, on exception to this, the X-Box. And Sony has taken the lead by Open Sourcing their Playstation APIs under their Linux for Playstation program. Now that's a path where the Open Source hardware icing could make sense.
"The truth shall make ye fret" -- The Truth, Terry Pratchett
You have no idea who could be reading!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Right like Mozilla. Uh ... nevermind. Seems like it took Mozilla quite a while to get to a useable state after being opened. Open Source is not a panacea. The simple act of putting the source code out there will not guarantee you better results. In fact, still using Mozilla as an example, you're likely to end up being pushed to just scrap it all and rewrite, taking you out of the market for 2+ years and still 95% of the work is done by your own employees.
So, you wipe the latest and greatest version of Windows off your system before even trying it, yet you say that if there were a decent version of Windows available then you'd try it? Uh ... hello?
Okay...
.NET and their developer tools. All of those technologies have functionality that is and has been easily duplicated; I might suggest the same thing for SQL Server and Exchange (IIS should just be thrown out).
I don't know how much they could give away, but they could definitely put the NT and Win9x source code out, along with
Internet Explorer SHOULD be, but something tells me there's still Spyglass crap in there that would make for some licensing headaches.
That still leaves a lot of territory uncovered -- MSOffice, the games, and all of Microsoft's vertical market apps for which an open source implementation would be sort of pointless. But they'd still have to get into services, I think...
/Brian
1) Release only mature products. When a bug makes it through, patch it quickly without breaking functionality, and don't charge for the fix.
2) Treat your customers like they have a choice. Even if it's a tough choice, they'll figure out that they have it eventually, and when they get mad enough with your licensing schemes and poor support, they'll make it.
If you can do these things, most customers don't care if the source is open or not. They just want what gets the job done.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
I'm serious. They shouldn't have a policy on it at all. Their only policy should be to continue doing their business and if they see they're losing market space to open source software, they should improve their products to compete. End of story. Microsoft, by their very nature, can do nothing but hurt open source, and vice versa. To save everyone a lot of effort, they should just each do their own thing and have zero interaction. As for the interaction of software, well, that's inevitable, but nonethless, it's not political.
I am sure Microsoft can compete and keep its market share without even uttering the words of our ideals. If they can't, why do they deserve to make a buck?
Why bother.
...what Yasser Arafat's peace plan is. Everybody knows Microsoft wants to push Open Source into the Meditaranean. MS already has two strategies for Open Source: 1. Make token agreements with it, then break them. 2. Continue to exploit Truly Free bits of Open Source (e.g., JPEG, ZLIB, PNG, TCP/IP, etc.).
However, I think that an independant Microsoft and Open Source could peacefully exist if... 1. MS and the Free Software advocates both recognize the rights of the other to exist. 2. MS agrees to adheer to open standards and not sponsor features that wander into the open standards and detonate.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
"I wiped XP from my new box without ever booting it."
Isn't that a bit pre-judgemental? How can you complain about something if you haven't used it?
- Phase 1: Write Open Source software
- Phase 2: ?
- Phase 3: Profit
[Apologies to the Underpants Gnomes.]Even those of us who would prefer to remain on X would probably install Windows for major applications like Office and the result would eventually be a practical dependence on Windows for all of the commercial application base. Owning the API they could then do whatever they like with the underlying platform; it becomes almost unimportant.
Perhaps I overlook some strategic barrier to such an approach, but luckily even if I'm right Microsoft is too staid to make the leap anyway. I don't expect any Microsoft Linux applications in the near future.
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
How about if Microsoft releases the source to a previous version of Windows? In other words, once they release a new version, the old version is given to the world, minus any code that they don't own.
Think about it. Microsoft ships a new release, Windows XP. They put the source up on their site for anyone to download, and in theory, use to release their own windows.
Now, its going to take at least a few weeks/months to get that source code compiled, libraries replaced, etc... so the OEMs have no choice for several months about what they sell.
So, 6 months later, a smart OEM can now offer the latest Windows, or a somewhat cheaper machine, with an older, non-Microsoft Windows, or a Linux with a really good Windows compatibility layer. Some consumers will go for it, but many, many will elect to get the Real Thing.
The next release? Again, MS has a long window (no pun) to sell the Real Thing, while an OEM can elect to sell a 2-generation old Windows until they catch up.
It gives choice. It give MS a revenue stream and instant competition.
It's the rapidly changing, undocumented, and proprietary API's and protocols than need to be opened up, to stop their anti-competitive behaviour.
Whether or not the source is available for Word, is less important than whether or not the format (with the monopoly share of the market) can be used interchangeably on different platforms by different vendors, or whether Microsoft keeps it closed and changing.
I really don't ever want to see Microsoft's source.
-me
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Forget the source code. Opening up windows source code gets you a big fucking mess, and not much more. The thing that would make the most difference is full documentation on the file formats for their office suite. Once these are available, then people can write a better word than word. It's interoperating with microsoft software that is the kicker. Who wants to fix their bugs?
as I sit here reading through comments, one of the biggest things I see is that most people are suggesting things like "MS can't survive in an open source world" "open api's" "open source is the best way to improve code" "build an os around the freebsd kernel" and stuff like that...
... not work 15% faster and use memory 20% more efficiently, and definitely not have to remember anything that they'll have to type in to update their system. Most people are point-and-click users, don't care that their kernel has been the same for the last year and like the ease of use to just download a driver and click on it, or better yet not have to download or click on anything but have the OS just recognize the hardware and just work.
Well, the way I see it, MS can and does survive pretty well in a market with open source, and not because they are a monopoly practicing unfair business practices but because they make an easy to use solution that satisfies most people's expectations.
As a regular user of all of windows 98se and 2000, debian linux, and freebsd, I have to say that the windows paradigm is damned easy to get around in. I don't see freebsd as ready to be a common-man desktop operating system, nor do I see any of the linux distros I've tried as there yet. Some of them are getting pretty close, but from an install standpoint, and configuration changes, and software installs and support, OSS OS'es demand more understanding than the tired-cliche-joe-sixpack will ever want to put into his OS or his computer. He doesn't care about monopolistic practices, he wants to turn it on and have it "just work"
Anyway, to stay on topic, I think windows should lower prices when OSS OS'es and software actually offer a threat to them in the desktop realm, and maybe should admit defeat or strive to improve and put out a decent product in the server market. Maybe MS should just pick their battles a little better, attacking OSS'es soft underbelly (the desktop) and not touching their armored shell (the server market) until they can actually compare with it, if they ever can.
But what do I know?
It's not a weak attempt to look like Open Source, it's subterfuge, Microsoft teaming up with Unisys (who should actually watch their back, seriously, M$ has a long tradition as a backstabber when it suits them) with their We Have The Way Out marketing program should make it quite clear they're aiming at not just Unix servers, but Linux servers which are highly popular.
Microsoft is painted into a corner, without actually being a 'solutions' company they have to have some sort of product, which means they have to protect the source to anything they 'innovate' Embracing Open Source wouldn't fit their business model, period. They'd have to sprout a new arm which provides service, and though that would provide further opportunity to extend their apparent favorite hobby, recent remarks about the evils and shortcomings of GPL, Linux, Open Source, et al, would be a considerable about-face and require some explaining to maintain credibility.
A word so misused and overused it makes me want to vomit everytime I see it.
Embrace, extend and cut-off the air supply of the real innovator(s).
Backstabbing their business partners and stealing their livelihood as they lay bleeding on Wall Street.
More commonly in their tongue known as bending the truth into a pretzel or outright lying.
Among gullible PHB's the world over.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Exactly.
.NET Studio.
Open the OS and it's functions. Don't charge for that - they still own the development branch of the OS.
So, if you do want to compile the OS or make changes you will need to buy their Visual
Costs more than the OS
One more monopoly I guess.
Get your Unix fortune now!
It reminds me of "Independence Day" the movie....
President of the USA to alien:
"what do you want us to do?"
Alien to President of the USA:
"Die"
Please Microsoft, pull your OS from the market and close this chapter on killing every innovative company that doesn't sing the Microsoft Corporate song.
:?
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
The simple act of putting the source code out there will not guarantee you better results.
Ok, we aren't talking product here buddy. Computers are made to solve problems and it's both science and engineering.
using Mozilla as an example, you're likely to end up being pushed to just scrap it all and rewrite, taking you out of the market for 2+ years and still 95% of the work is done by your own employees.
Scrap it all and rewrite... sometimes it's needed. IANAMD [I am not a mozilla developer] but what I do know is that sometimes a product developed behind closed doors has problems. When the public sees the code then that 5% will either speak up or contribute.
You can't have a good alpha/beta program with out letting out a few secrets*. Usually the more the better. [* Now, you could of course internally test your software but this limits the chances of good code coming from poor people. This is why many closed/proprietary camps use beta programs even still. ]
The point of open source IMHO is trying to develop products which won't fail when you are depending on them. OSS isn't about making cash hand over fist.
You will get failures, forks and re-writes.... but it's all in the name of solving problems.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Yeah, but they didn't make any of it.
I think a great many people would be satisfied if Microsoft would simply keep their interfaces, configurations, and standards open and reasonably constant. It's the hidden stuff that makes my applets and programs break. It's the secret "upgrades" hidden in dll libraries amounting to only a few bytes code change but which also happen to completely break a competitors program, that irritates people.
Who really CARES about microsoft code? Get the API and hooks out in the open so we can SEE when they're deliberately forcing you to replace that "win95 only" application that still works fine but somehow doesn't run under win98 or XP. That's the "open source" I want.
No, this isn't flamebait. I keep a collection of system files archived because about once a year microsoft releases an "update" that breaks one program or another. I've seen this since MS deliberately broke netscape with a small dll file and Netscape support was forced to redistribute that dll file as a fix. Get the standards in the open and we'll be happier than we'd be with the actual code.
Microsoft should just go out of business and put us out of their misery. That would be an excellent open source move on their part. But that's my biased and non-objective opinion, so feel free to mod it down to troll.
-Rob
Windows 98 never gave me problems with resizing partitions, so that looks like another "innovation."
You really don't know too much about Windows.
Windows XP is based on NT, which means it is capable of using NTFS.
Now, I don't know what your partitioning floppy had on it, but if it was only FDISK I don't know how you were resizing partitions anywhere.
FIPS or Disk Druid can resize partitions, but not NTFS. I think only Partition Magic can at this point.
So in other words, you tried to change some partitions, failed miserably, and blamed it on Windows.
Yet, if I tried to install Linux, couldn't get 3D acceleration working, and blamed the whole thing on linux, a million people like you would berate me.
If your machine came with XP, you have a CD. Go try it, at the very least. Know your enemy, if it must be one. At the very least you'll know exactly what's wrong with it, and why....
It will install just fine in any partition that's large enough to hold it. I'd say 2GB minimum, and go for at least 10 so you can see how it handles for an average user.
You never tried it, so don't give me bullshit crap saying you did. Trying implies using it for a few days after a complete, working setup.
Yes, Microsoft should release the source for XP, under a license that if you own the OS you can have the source. Or even just a big chunk of the source.... anything but leaving me on top of a binary-only pyramid. That's why I keep Linux dual-boot.
Great Plains Business solutions...don't you keep up with the news?
How can it work with the Open Source community, leverage its resources, and still make a buck?
The answer? It can't. The reason? Because M$ knows that open source is the only real threat to it's monopoly. The second M$ does anything to help out the open source community, it is weakening it's control. That is why we will NEVER see IE for Linux. MS Office documents will never be in an open standard that Linux can open easily with no problems. I don't know much about Samba, but I am waiting for the day that MS changes something so that Samba doesn't work for file sharing. Open Source is MS's biggest enemy and competitor. Asking this question is like saying "how can coke help out pepsi". It's not going to happen.
just my $.02.
Microsoft's successful business model depends on products tied around their Windows platform. A Windows platform means a Windows license, other products that they sell that runs on that platform (resulting in more licenses), and keeps people who have invested in becoming Windows developers in business, who will in turn produce software for the platform which increases its value to Microsoft. They have certification programs based on this, and work very hard to get this one platform into as many markets as possible (X-Box, for one example).
Instead of complying with open standards, it's much more advantageous to Microsoft if you use their standards. A ubiquitous Microsoft standard platform means all kinds of profit potential.
Microsoft will never forgive itself for missing the opportunity to take a cut of every credit card transaction initiated from a Windows platform. My guess is that they're hoping that one day Passport/Wallet will be the way to reclaim this dream.
So why would they give up a major cash cow plus endanger a future cash cow motherlode just because some hippies are whining about source code? They won't. They'll pay it lip service, they'll do what is required to make them sound hip, but don't expect them to open source Windows until their monopoly foothold is completely gone.
They are not a typical software company, and things that make sense for many software companies do not make sense for them. Therefore open source is out, unless it's for technology that really doesn't matter to them if people can reproduce.
The fact that they're now speaking highly of open source and alternative .NET implementations leads me to believe that they're not directly a core to their plans, and may even be assisting their world domination plans. Be so afraid. :)
You are absolutely correct except for one small thing.
MS is a predatory monopoly. This isn't just rhetoric, it's been the case of an earlier consent decree and the recent criminal conviction.
Predatory monopolies are the free market equivalence of singularities (black holes) in physics. They change all of the rules around them.
E.g., let's say I'm an OEM and I know that 5% of my customers want a non-MS OS. In a free market, I could offer the alternative at a reasonable price (including overhead for the cost of maintaining a second product line) and the alternative will sink or swim on its own.
But since MS is a predatory monopoly, it has written contracts that say the sale of a single non-MS system puts the OEM in a new category and ALL licenses cost an extra $10. The price of this license has nothing to do with the what's offered for sale, for volume, or any other purpose of any economic value to anyone. (MS does not gain from it since it never expects the clause to be enforced.)
No - the sole purpose for that clause is to artifically raise the entry barrier to the competition. It's the difference between a natural monopoly because, gosh darn it, every time we hear that Windows chime we have spontaneous orgasms because the software is such an incredible joy to work with and a predatory monopoly where the software is universally condemned as one of the worst products on the market yet it's impossible for most people to find alternatives.
The problem, of course, is that this is no longer a free market. A free market may have a Gateway offering a Linux box for 50% more than a Windows box because of the need to avoid the cheap win-hardware, and to cover additional overhead costs. A free market would never tolerate an OEM being forced to pay a third party uninvolved in the transaction in any way tens of millions of dollars in penalties.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
"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."
No doubt. I'd like to see successful GPL'd code too. I'm not saying it's not out there, I'm just saying I've never heard of it. The reason MS isn't using it is because their current business model works and people pay for it.
What incentive do they have to change? How could they possibly make even as much money with it as they do now?
Call MS evil if you like, but they are a business. Their job is to make money. They picked a strategy and they're playing hardball. If you want GPL to be successful, then you have to find a way to make it profitable. When somebody makes insane amounts of money using the GPL approach, then MS may change their tune.
"Derp de derp."
Unfortuneately, their OS is their big money maker, and it's how they beat around competing software vendors. Unfortuneately for them, making money selling OSes probably can't last forever.
Basically, instead of fighting to the death, they could be a bit more conservative and not bet everything on their own inferior, proprietary OS, and develop for other OSes as well.
IMHO, it simply makes better business sense to embrace other OSes, in the long term they are currently risking becoming obsolete.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I'm a FreeBSD user myself, but UFS+S does not equal ext2fs in speed, let alone "blow it out of the water"
Maybe your usage is non typical, but I never found
one single application where UFS+S outperformed ext2fs.
The business practices of microsoft are vile. Perioid. Dealing with microsoft is contributing to the further destruction of of freedom/values/justice/honor/integrity and that just about sums it up.
No one should be that powerfull.
And thats my opinion.
_____ "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." -- Orwell
Besides, we'd have one less thing to bitch about on
You haven't dealt with Sun lately, have you?
/.
They're the 'dot' in
rm -rf
Browsing at +3, and seeing no responses that really answer the question: What should Microsoft do? What would be the "right" thing?
.NOT. It might be their "database" file system. It might be their "subscription" model for Win XP.
As others have noted, while Microsoft put pressure on its competitors, now found to be illegal pressure, much of the demise of MS's competitors has been their own dang fault.
For example, MS did everything they could to get IE as the "default browser" that it is today, but who here has used any recent version of Netscape and been happy with it? 4.x sucks, 6.x is worse, and IE is quite usable. Throw the politics out - which would you prefer?
Mozilla will hopefully change the story, but it's YEARS too late in an industry that works on Internet time.
Word Perfect didn't come out with a decent word processor for Windows for YEARS after Win 3.x became popular.
And so on.
If Linux takes Microsoft, it will be because Microsoft makes a fatal mistake. We don't know what it will be. It might actually be
Whatever it be, it will be when they make a mistake, bet their farm on it, and lose the farm. So far, they've avoided the big mistakes, and the small/medium mistakes have been offset up by strong-arm tactics and backroom deals.
But, if MS sticks to making products that generally work as expected, and don't charge too much for them, and don't hassle their clients too much, it would be damn near impossible to beat 'em.
How would MS beat Linux?
1) Charge reasonable prices for Windows.
2) Make sure it works reasonably well.
3) Make their products inter-operate.
MS has our fury because they have consistently tried to lock the user in. If they were to follow the above three, they'd be no worse off than google, which despite approaching a monopoly on Internet searching, still has our good will. The boys at google have shown time and again a staunch and admirable "stick to basics" approach to their business that inspires trust and confidence.
MS, on the other hand, lies openly and repeatedly to anybody who will listen about whatever suits their fancy.
I don't know what it will be, but MS will make that fatal mistake - and after making it, they will either go the way of DEC (which was once a titan) or learn from their mistakes like IBM. (who now has our love and grace)
So, my advice? Back off Bill! Take it easy a bit, and work WITH the industry forces, (Internet and related, like Linux) inter-operate, and for once, show some ethics!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Darwin runs on x86 as well.
The interesting thing about Apple is that MacOS X is *not* open source, although the Darwin kernel component is. The Quartz graphics engine, the Aqua gui layer, and all of the traditional MacOS apis, are not open source.
Microsoft has a product called Interix, which consists of a Unix subsystem that plugs into the Windows 2000/XP kernel, plus a large set of Unix utilities. Microsoft has open sourced their versions of gcc, gdb, etc, because they have to, but they haven't open sourced the BSD based utilities that come with Interix, even though they'd lose little by doing so.
If Microsoft open sourced the entire Interix product (utilities and subsystem), then their operating system would be like Apple's, with an open source Unix component, and a larger proprietary component containing all of the APIs that are special to Windows.
Doug Moen
I have written a truly remarkable program which this sig is too small to contain.
The GPL is not something invented to keep people from making money. Comercial use of code is part of your software rights. It is your right to use your softwar in anyway you see fit, so long as it does not infring on the rights of others. There is plenty of money being made configuring, servicing and making software. Making that software free will not stop people from making money that way. Doctors, lawyers and engineers make a living without selling a restrictively licensed "product" and programers can too. In fact, most programers do this.
Yes, some of them might even have fun doing it, and others like me might not ever expect a dime from their efforts. If Corel can't make money the M$ way, who stands a chance? Better to jump on the new superior model and have good software than to try and be an ass for no reward. As free software becomes better known and more widely deployed there may be less of a chance even for M$ to make money selling closed source binaries that spy on you, blare adverts at you and suck in general. Microsoft has disgraced themselves and all closed source companies by association. A free market eliminates waste like that and M$ is on it's way to the trash can. How should M$ open their code? Fully and imediatly! The longer they wait, the further behind it gets. I won't use their crap as is, and it will take years to make it suck less.
Now for a few words in the defense of Red Hat. While, I'm not versed in all of the nice things they do, besides WRITE and DISTRIBUTE FREE SOFTWARE for everyone to use, they also provide a home for the GCC project. If that's not Red Hat's money finding it's way to major coders and contributors to free software, then sure Red Hat keeps all it's money to itself. Hmmmm.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
this is an old troll...i've read this at least 3 times.
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
There is a very simple reason I use Linux. It's the same reason that I just installed Linux on yet another company server today.
It works!
Windows doesn't.
It's just that simply. Screw an 'Open Source' policy, that's not what MS needs. MS needs to worry more about delivering good software first and foremost.
I'll bitch as much as the next guy about MS's unfair bussiness practices because we got stuck with shit because of it. If they had delivered quality software, well, then I probably wouldn't complain.
I can't stress this enough, it's not that MS is evil or bad or not free or whatever, it's just that there software sucks. So for god sakes stop using it and then trying to figure out 'What MS's OS Strategy should be.'
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
I don't fault Microsoft for wanting to sell software. It's a respectable business and if there are people who want to buy packaged software, that's fine.
What Microsoft should do is play fairly. All they have to do is make an effort to adhere to standards. Document the protocols. Publish the API's. If there's a standard way of doing something, do it that way instead of building a black-box clone.
Microsoft says that they have the best software. If that's the case, why put so much effort into creating lock-in? They should simply create the best software they can, and play fairly like everyone else. They'd continue to make money and they wouldn't have everyone hating their guts. They wouldn't be able to hold a monopoly that way, but the customers they did have would be loyal and happy. And some real competition would force them to actually listen to what customers are asking for and deliver it to them, instead of the current "we know best" approach.
I'm convinced that this won't happen for as long as Gates is in charge. He has a "god complex" and wants to own and control every molecule in the universe. Perhaps a post-Gates Microsoft of the future will see the light.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Embrace and extend. What else? Or were you wondering what their strategy should be if they did NOT want to dominate the whole freaking world? That's kind of academic.
In fact, the strategy they have is a damned good one. It'll be even better if nobody clues to it in time, which is why I particularly delight in outing it here. This is my interpretation, and they may possibly phrase it differently- or not. Maybe in the NEXT antitrust fiasco this will come to light.
MICROSOFT'S OPEN SOURCE STRATEGY
This. Is. What. They. Are. Doing.
Note that it plays to their strengths, including the strengths they've learned in the antitrust trial, of barratrous lawsuits and dragging things out endlessly, and note the brilliance of embracing and extending, not the openness of collaboration, but the concept of a viral license. This is brilliant conceptual work on their part, it really is.
But it does not have to succeed- because they really need people who are KNOWN to have agreed to their license. They can't really go around suing everyone who writes open source and dragging them into court and saying, "You DID agree to the Shared Source license, didn't you? Everybody does! You had to have!". That won't fly- people who can legitimately say they've never agreed to that license are in a position of strength.
However, people who have in fact agreed to their viral Shared Source license, EVER, are fucked. And can never be allowed to participate in open source or free software development- because of the legal exposure.
Given this state of affairs, why would Microsoft ever need to find another open source strategy? This is unquestionably the best one for their goals. Yes, it's evil. And your point is?
It's true that Apple's end goal is selling more hardware. The particular way in which open source has done this, however, it to make their hardware more attractive by raising the quality of the software that it will run.
So, Microsoft could use open source in manner parallel to Darwin (and Apple's treatment of Apache, SSH, Perl, etc etc) to improve their software. Whether or not they're a hardware vendor, improving their software should make it more attractive to customers, and thus Increase Shareholder Value.
Actually, I suppose that competing on the cutting edge of quality is a novel strategy for MS. But heck, if they wanted to start doing that more more often....
Any conessions Microsoft would make towards the Open Source community would be an enourmous mistake. It would only succeed in showing their customer base "The Microsoft Way" is not the best way, which is what they are paying to hear.
In 2002, the IT industry is going to have to take sides in a war. Traditional versus Innovative, Closed versus Open, Agressive Development versus Passive Development, Cathedral versus Bazaar. No matter what you call it, you're going to have to firmly identify yourself on one side or the other.
The Microsoft Way says that there should be one company to spearhead development, and lead everyone else down a primrose path. Not only should you follow your shepherd Microsoft, but you should shell out gobs of money for the mere opportunity to follow this shepherd, as it tends to be comfortable inside the herd, and youre surrounded by other sheep you can point fingers at in the event of a catastrophe.
The "Other" Way, or, more clearly, OUR way, goes something like this: I am personally accountable for my actions. If I assume responsibility for something outside my sphere of competence, I do so at my own risk. Professionally, I will chose what works best for my company, regardless of platform affinity. My preferences often do not extend to encompass others. I know Mildren over in Accounting doesnt know what "grep" is. If something goes catastrophically wrong, its a lesson that would have been learned anyway. I dont care where the herd is going. I am the Sheperd, not the sheep.
Take your pick.
Bowie J. Poag
I've seen this exact message before.
And with regard to Linux file systems, I think XFS is a good cool punk rock solid journaling FS. Though their website seems to be down now.
Well, this argument has been something that has been whispered about but seldom brought into the open. Linux is a powerful tool, but at the same time, its a private toy for those who got involved before the "L" word was a buzz word.
The Linux community needs to decide what they want....to keep their toy the way it is, or to seriously make some changes and try to take the market.
If people dont want to make the changes, thats fine with me, but no one can then go and complain that MS has the desktop market in its pocket. Windows is poor in a huge manner of respects, but one thing that everyone seems to miss out on is the people its designed for. It is designed for the average user. The average computer user is the kind of person who think a cd rom drive is a built in cup holder (you people in tech support know what im talking about). A person like that will not be comfortable or use Linux in its present state.....period.
Things that we take for granted as being over simple and easy or out of reach for most avaerage users. Those people are the market, you want to win the desktop war, you have to win those people.
Another aspect for winning the desktop war is games....Loki's gone, what now? The PC has quickly become the most common gaming platform and is no longer seen as a work tool, its your new entertainment center. Until Linux gets a decent library of games and new games, not just old converts of windows games, Linux winning the desktop war wont happen.
---------
As for the actual topic of the thread, whats the big deal about open source and why does everyone hate Microsoft? I hear Linux fans praising Mac all the time, they arent open source. This seems very hypocritical to me. The key to for a future business model in this arena in my opinion is open spec. Why not? If a company's entire lively hood depends on their code base and they want to protect it, whats wrong with that? What do you or I care if we see the code, if its open spec, we can still work with it, talk to it and everything can play nice together. Thats what matters in the end, from what i hear, thats the root of most beefs people have with microsoft products, not being able to work with it correctly. Before you bash microsoft for being close source, think about how you were talking about how cool the G4 is just 10 minutes ago and for just a moment, try and side step your own hypocricsy.
--this is a general argument, not aimed at any one person.
You can't please all the people all the time, but you sure can piss all of them off all the time.......
Even back when I was running OS/2 (until mid '98) my computer wasn't non-Microsoft, and with reason- some of it was damn good stuff. Two weeks ago I had to drop it entirely. That's not a bad thing. I don't owe them even the chance that I gave them. I owe it to myself to find good software, and Microsoft's latest offering hid from me. Office XP could be the best thing since sliced bread- and if that seems to be the general feeling then I'll try it out. Until then I've got the XP disc sitting in my attic, and up there, it works great.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
"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?"
The real question is "Do we care?"
There are enough alternative operating systems out there. I for one couldnt give a rats a... if MS folded over night because it couldnt make a buck in the open source world..... and I run a couple of MS Windows boxes.
Microsoft will do whatever it wants - always has, always will... and as usual, in the eyes of the media, it will smell like a rose.
"If I could only live my life with my threshold at 4... " -- Wil Wheaton
The simple fact is that MS will never have to even acknowledge the open-source movement if they don't want to. Why? Because they're focused on the war (total technological presence), not the battle (Linux vs. Windows). That is why MS wins. Because people get hung up on minor issues (Netscape vs. IE, Java vs. C#) when they're really just pieces of a much larger and more elaborate puzzle. MS wants to bring you the digital universe. From CD players to refrigerators to microwaves. They want a slice of every pie. And they'll probably get it. Simply because they're pushing these areas. Behind the scenes, a lot of their work goes toward the future and future uses of the PC. Windows will become less and less of an important characteristic. In fact, the underlying operating system will become less and less important in the future of computing. Much in the same way that BIOS's are now (fairly) standardized. Eventually the OS will reach it's theoretical design "perfection" and will be relegated to hardware or flash ROM. The money is in providing a truly digital lifestyle to the average consumer at a reasonable price. That is MS's war, and they have a long way to go. But don't get so caught up in the current battle, for it will soon be distant history. For reference, just go back to the early 90's and read some of the articles on Windows & OS/2. See what the opinion of the future of *NIX was back then. All it takes is one breakthrough or one consumer craze to change the entire way the industry works. Don't think for a second MS isn't eyeing the *real* prize.
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
Microsoft's top-down, rigid control model is completely at odds with the way things are done with open source software. Furthermore, Microsoft is a business, and as such, its main goal is profit. Microsoft has been extremely profitable with its current business model, and it is quite clear that most open source-centric business models have not experienced that level of profit. It would therefore be a grave fiduciary misstep on Microsoft's part to deviate from its current business model.
I like to play children's songs in minor keys.
"We're all sons of bitches now." --J. Robert Oppenheimer
So what you're saying is that Microsoft should surrender to their blood enemy to increase competition and innovation, and said increase in competition will force every other company to collapse and join into megacorporations that are even more stagnant than we blame Microsoft for? I find this highly unlikely. The only thing that would come of Microsoft surrendering Windows would be the collapse of Microsoft and the Windows platform, as supported by any specific company. Linux and BSD would rule supreme on a suddenly much smaller market, but the companies would not join together, they would compete more viciously.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Personally, in 6 continuous years of running Linux with ext2fs, I've never had a dataloss problem.
Maybe this is one of those "then you don't use it right" things. So what am I doing wrong?
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Now where have I heard this before... This post is cut-and-paste identical to some FUD that's all over the net.
A solution to the problem with music today
But, you see, it is profitable for a company like Microsoft to reinvent the wheel. Making a proprietary, non-interoperable kernel interface or web server ties people to their platform and it saves Microsoft the expense and uncertainty of actually having to come up with innovative products.
May the best man win. If it's Windows, so be it. I'm not going to use Linux out of a pointless sense of blind optimism. But if Linux is going to be the winner, someone needs to get cracking soon, because Linux as is just isn't cutting it for home use.
Got Rhinos?
The fact that it is perfectly legal and easily doable for you to buy a computer without MSWin is why Microsoft does not have a monopoly.
A predatory monopoly only continues if it has government backing, such as a "national oil company" or what AT&T was in the US, or if it produces a better product than anyone else.
Whether you like it or not, Microsoft produced a better consumer operating system than anyone else for a few years. That is how they became big.
By abusing that market position, and alienating people, they are now losing mind share. Not market share, not yet.
The turning point was the Microsoft rebate drive.
Microsoft's further alienation of their potential markets, with their BSA hired thugs, has led to such marvelous developments as Red Flag Linux! Good bye, possible 1 Billion users!
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Superficial thinking.
If the alternative OS can really "swim," a retailer can open which does business only with the alternative, and doesn't deal with M$.
The problem is that Linux can't swim. Deal with it. M$ is a scapegoat, nothing else.
Those businesses, if they were to choose a Microsoft OS, would choose Windows 2000
Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but what did these business' do for a desktop OS before Win2K came out? Win98 was the "desktop" standard for many business' for quite a while.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
Actually, most UI critiques of Microsoft products read like a litany of cardinal sins. Intuitive: no, natural: no, adaptable: no, etc., etc. The one category where they really excel is in consistency. Unfortunately, it's consistency in bad paradigms. The reason that the Windows 95 interface has been copied over and over again (by both KDE and GNOME, notably), is because it has been grudgingly learned by a public with no other options. I mean, we're talking about an interface that needed a massive marketing blitz and a best-selling "how to use it" video starring TV celebrities to help people figure it out!
In a market with true competition, a competitor would have been able to make major inroads in 1994, just because Windows 95 was so frightening to users.
Right...
This very interesting support article speaks for itself. I dont know if i should be pissed, or laff at how sad they are...
[alk]
if you are a company and you're satisfied with not owning the world, you end up being owned by one who isn't.
modern capitalism is a hot dog eating contest: you gotta be the biggest and the fastest, or there's no point in even sitting down at the table.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
Traditional versus Innovative, Closed versus Open,
I don't see the link between Innovative and Open Source. Most of the innovative work done in software engineering is done in company-funded researchlabs, not by Open Source hackers.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
This has already happened long ago. However, most companies that I know of tend to have one vendor that they buy from. That enables them to build good relations with their vendor, getting good deals and good support. With your reasoning, people would have to migrate their entire business onto Linux in one go.
M$ is no scapegoat. Ask BeOS, Mac, Sun, IBM, DR. They don't compete on an open market, they compete through litigation and intimidation (that is what those OEM licenses really are). If you get that $10 penalty on every system you sell, along with lower priority whenever you have a request for your main OS vendor, well - that amounts to a serious business disadvantage that does not compensate for those additional 5% you can do business with.
Stop the brainwash
Consider the following things:
1. Windows and MS's major OSs are pretty unique, but at the same time are'nt nearly as advanced at the core as other major OSs, meaning a) nobody would want to steal it, and b) if somebody did, it would probably be easy to catch anyone if they did.
2. All the software outside of the base OS really does'nt provide MS with income. Media player, IE, directx, et. al. are ad-ons MS uses to get market share in those realms. If open, the worst that could happen is somebody makes it better and MS steals the ideas.
3. With thousands of programmers pouring over source code, security issues could be identified much quicker, allowing MS to (eventually) shed one of it's major banes
4. Somebody might actually figure out a way to make windows stable. MS buys the rights to include this in their Windows.. wow, they have improvements at a very marginal cost.
5. MS actually does something that makes geeks happy.
The Internet is generally stupid
You can fit seven copies of Texas into Western Australia alone, with no folding or overlap. Yet idiot tourists still climb into taxis here in Perth and ask to be taken to Sydney (two days' drive, non-stop, no sleep). Australia is not small. Just Perth-Broome takes a full 24 hours at the speed limit (110km/h).
We do have some small islands, but they're fast becoming unavailable; for example, Christmas Island is becoming a spaceport, and already has a good income from
Australian OTH radar can track aircraft taking off and landing in your home town, even though you're on the other side of the planet, even stealth aircraft. Australian rocket technology delivered three finished and operational destroyer-decoy systems for $AUD2M, the US spent $USD70M just getting a tethered rocket to hover. When I say `operational' I mean the US armed forces had to fly over and look to tell which was the decoy. Australian troops have often invaded and held places that US Marines, good as they are, couldn't (and it's worth adding that crew like the Ghurkas are even better). Australian agricultural innovation keeps American crops alive. This `small island' does a lot of stuff for Canada's Far South (that's the bits below the Great Lakes and above Mexico) with very few industrial resources.
Give us an American budget and there'd be no looking back. Fred would be finished by 2004 and a working SPS system in place by 2010. Putting our politicians in jail is only one of our many special methods. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
"I suppose you expect me to talk now?"
"No, Mr Bond - I expect you to die!"
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Die, or Live. Sink or swim. ON THEIR MERITS. Their attitude should be to reject "embrace and extend" and open up all their API to standards conformance, and use standards for any future development. Then the excellence of their programs will allow them to gain the effeciencies that result from being driven out of markets where their products _actually_ suck.
"The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
Why would they want an open source strategy? They seem to be doing fine with their own business model.
Sig is taking a break!
Moderation Totals: Offtopic=1, Troll=7, Insightful=4, Funny=1, Overrated=1, Underrated=4, Total=18.
dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
Be.
if you mean free in the way it is usually meant: free to make whatever economic choices they want to, then m$ is behaving in perfect harmony with the free market system, since the economic choices are its own
Gee whiz, you really thought this through didn't you? Doesn't it even bother you that the same economists who thought of the term "free market" also defined monopolies, and why they're bad? Whoah, in fact, steady on now your brain might hurt when you read this; isn't the thing that's so BAD about communism from an economic point of view that the goverment is a *monopoly* controlling the means of production? So maybe government isn't inherently evil, but monopolies are?? Woah...
"People in the same trade seldom meet together even for merriment and diversion, but a conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or in some contrivance to raise prices," Adam Smith , "Wealth of Nations", 1766.
A free market's most succesful companies are its worst enemies -- that's a quote from some-one as well, just don't remember from whom..
A lot of pro-M$ comments today BTW, unlike normal karma-whoring -- astroturfday?
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
Interoperability.
Think SAMBA with the last buglets gone. With full Active Directory support, Primary Domain Controller support, etc.
Think full support for ASP on an Apache box for migrating those legacy apps over or for web hosting outfits that would like to take money from M$ victims without becoming one themselves.
Think DirectX games running flawlessly under WINE.
Think of what the Cygwin folks could do if they could get access to the real internals of Windows.
Think full and accurate Office file import/export.
In short, think seamless interoperability between UNIX and Windows. It would be a beautiful thing.
Of course every one of those things would result in less sales, therefore lower revenue. The only possible upside would be happier customers, but I really don't think they give a damn if they have happy customers, only that they have captive ones who pay and pay.
Democrat delenda est
It's like asking what policy should KKK adopt to accommodate blacks' complaints about it, or how should gangs operate to be acceptable -- the whole design of Microsoft business model is incompatible with anyone's else goals, it is designed to have everything controlled by it, or fail. I would rather help it fail.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Basically, there are two main complaints when it comes to Microsoft:
1) its products are generally of poor quality
2) despite (1) it dominates the market through unscrupulous and sometimes illegal business practices
The only one that has the right or responsibility to change (1) is Microsoft itself. If it does this through adopting a more open development model, fine. If it does it by better training its developers and Q.A. personnel, fine. If it does it by hiring another company to find and fix its bugs, fine. And if it doesn't do it at all, that's fine too. People can vote with their feet and with their dollars and simply get their software from somebody else.
Except they can't, because of (2). And this is where antitrust law comes in and this is the thing that people should really care about.
People who want to see Microsoft compelled to reveal their source code are only distracting the issue. It's not as though Microsoft is the only company or organization that is capable of producing the kind of software people want. Ask any developer that is trying to write software for Windows and they'll tell you they don't want to know how Microsoft's software does what it does, rather they want to know how how to be able to make their software do what they want it to do. For this they need complete and accurate documentation of Microsoft's APIs and the information they need to be able to make informed decisions about performance, compatability, security, etc.
It's not as though the only way that anyone else can compete with Microsoft is by copying from its source code like some lazy student, who hasn't been coming to class all semester and only now realizes that the only way (s)he can finish the assignment is to cheat off the smart kids.
Most of the smart people always work for someone else, and this is as true of Microsoft as it is of any other company. If competitors are given equal access to the interfaces then they will make great software, and Microsoft knows this this. All this talk of forcing them to open their code simply obscures the issues, which I would summarize as follows:
1) Microsoft monopolizes information about the interfaces of its operating system, putting application-level competitors at an unfair disadvantage
2) Microsoft uses its dominant operating system market share to coerce hardware vendors to withold support for other operating systems, putting OS-level competitors at an unfair disadvantage.
Compelling Microsoft to divulge bits of source code here and there will do little to remedy (1) and nothing at all to address (2). But then again, neither will any of the proposed remedies from any of the antitrust suits.
Which market? It's all very well citing the success and quality of Linux, a mainstream development that is useful to many people and has many supporters. But in the grand scheme of things, the open source and/or free software world has few such widely applicable and high quality outputs. Most of the other major results -- the office suites, for example -- are in the "good but not great" category, and MS has no need to compete with them at present, nor is it likely to any time in the near future. Just because something is open source does not automatically make it better, and MS knows this, and MS' customers know this. Remember, most of them are businesses, who care far less about privacy or a few dollars than they do about having a well-known product with a great-looking support contract.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Write software that coexists well with open-source free software, and is enough better to be worth paying for.
(end joke for the day)
But if you are a multi-billion company that finds just writing software that _works_ to be a major challenge nowadays, you have to find a more, errrrr, creative solution, such as:
1. Lie a lot. Spread the FUD widely and deeply with massive advertising campaigns. Hope no court ever holds you accountable for advertising high reliability in your server software, when your "server" software is actually barely reliable enough for the corporate desktop...
2. Send lots of b^r^i^b^e^s campaign contributions to Congress and try to get laws passed making it difficult to legally write open source. Form an alliance with Disney, which appears to own at least two senators...
3. Cash in your stock before the Wall Street morons figure out that your company is doomed. (Well, not really doomed. Worst case MSFT will still sell some $billions/year to businesses that have locked themselves into MS proprietary data formats so it takes 10 years to convert -- it's just that it takes some $hundred billions/year of sales to justify the present stock price. I'm not a stock analyst, but IMO the present price seems to assume that next year every starving Chinese peasant will somehow come up with enough money to buy a genuine Windows CD as a wall ornament -- they don't have power and can't afford batteries so what else would they do with it?)
I would like to see Microsoft Corporation completely acknowledge, and make full restitution for, their abuse of their customers, and their disrespect for the law.
This is a company, which, when the US DOJ prohibited them from continuing to bundle Internet Exploder as part of their Windows 95 operating system, decided that the simplest way to continue doing business as usual was to rename the next interim bug fix to Windows 95, as Windows 98 -- and pretend it was a brand new operating system, to which the DOJ prohibition did not apply.
We should settle for nothing less than complete acknowledgement and complete restitution. Heads must roll. Microsoft has behaved as if it above the law. Every senior manager, whose actions or statements has proven that they will break the law again should be considered unredeemable. They all have to go. A public trustee should take command of microsoft until ever last weasel is exposed. Those who committed serious crimes should have the evidence against them turned in to the authorities. The big boys should be hit with fines large enough to hurt and humiliate even a multi-billionaire.
And if it is proven that they compounded their offense by repeatedly ignoring previous judgements against them? Hard time, serious hard time. Let's not see the Microsoft conspirator get put in country club jails, like the watergate conspirators.
Ask any marketing person. I believe, if you can catch them in an honest moment, they will tell you that it is totally unnecessary to provide a product that "provides significant worth", or even one that is any darn good at all, and doesn't harm the consumer. Perception is everything in marketplace. The only thing that is necessary is to convince the consumer you have a superior product.
Now, one approach to convincing the consumer you are offering a superior product is to actually work hard to provide a superior product. Unfortunately, this approach seems to be falling out of favor.
We know how Microsoft convinces consumers their product is superior. FUD. Lies. Buying dishonest "independent" research outfits to prove whatever new lie they want to propogate.
Letting Microsoft get away with lying and cheating will encourage less brazenly dishonest companies think they can get away with this kind of abuse too.
Perhaps Microsoft should start a consulting arm. Whatever they might have currently doesn't count. I mean significant effort, strong marketing of it, and generating substantial percentages of overall revenue. IBM does, Sun does, Oracle does. And so on, ad nauseum.
Then again, there'd be a few gajillion certified partners that'd scream bloody murder if they did. So step two is to hire the good ones. After all, having a phone list of candidates worldwide can't hurt when trying to come up to speed as a consultancy. The rest will calm down when they see their own rates ligitimized and increased because Microsoft charges 3x or 4x what many mom-n-pop consultancies are currently stuck charging.
Once the consulting arm is alive, start tiering software. Open source and give away the limited/educational level software, and charge for the standard and enterprise grade stuff. Exchange server: costs. Enterprise-grade exchange server: costs lots. Wait, don't set that checkbook down. You'll need help setting things up correctly. And MS will do it for just $300 per hour. Support contract? Another kilobuck per year per dozen employees. Etc.
Hmm, that sounds a lot like Oracle, IBM and Sun. Why is it I read daily that the future is in service, yet Microsoft doesn't have a significant service or consulting branch? It chills me to guess that Microsoft doesn't because they're too happy making 96% markup on their software-only business to waste time picking up the pennies left over on consultancy margins.
OK, so maybe somebody has already thrown this question back to the questioner, but if so, they're buried somewhere below mod-3 level (not that my comments ever escape there with my newbie-ized lack of karma.)
--If early cars were like software, we'd all have gone back to horses.
This is over the top and they'd never do it, but very interesting. Main problem is that it would require MS to lose a very large chunk of short-term profits, which would piss off the stockholders, which would lead to top executives getting fired and/or losing a lot of money. That'd never fly.
Also, if they did this, the US Government would get quite upset, possibly upset enough to send Special Ops into Redmond to retrieve the code for all those 'DozeNT systems that are vital to National Security.
(Who moderated this as "troll"? If it is a troll, it's an old-school, interesting troll with almost all the words spelled right, not one of those idiotic crapfloods that passes for a troll nowadays. +3 Interesting, too bad I used up all my mod points yesterday....)
Give a monkey a brain and he'll swear he's the center of the universe.
They're not changing their position, folks, no matter how much we beg and plead, unless there is a business reason to do so. M$'s ultimate weakness is its hubris. They really believe the spin their marketing people and strategy people pump out: that their products are better, that Open Source is anti-competitive, that they aren't a monopoly, etc. They also believe that customers will continue to pay a premium to be a part of their endless upgrade cycle, a belief that will be shattered as XP gets shot down as a solution for more and more corporate desktops, and ASP's look toward lower-cost alternatives to .N(Y)ET in their datacenters.
I say go on and let them go about their business. More developers and users will get abused, surely, and that sucks. But we've seen that Open Source is a movement, not a revolution. Expecting it to cause instantaneous upheaval at the world's most successfuly company is arrogant, short-sighted and ultimately counterproductive.
In the end, only Microsoft can bring down Microsoft. And it will. Just not in time for supper.
Let the flaming begin.
"Don't matter how New Age you get, old age is gonna kick your ass." - Utah Phillips
allowed customers to be their own tech support and fix coding bugs? Wait a min, screw that! We already have Linux!
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
Sun holds no pretenses that they are an OSS vendor. Apple with their "Think Different" campaign and singing OSS/Linux love balads are portraying themselves as our friends. But no matter what we port over or write, Apple still has complete control over their own hardware. OS X will never run on x86, AMD 64-x86 or IA-64.
So every bit of code written for Apple, Apple owns because they own the platform. Thousands of Linux Hackers who once shunned the $100 Microsoft tax are now paying another tax:
$2000 for a new system that should cost $600.
$300 for memory that should cost $100.
$1000 for a flat panel that should cost $600.
Apple is sucking money and time out of the OSS software movement that we will never get back. Linux may die because there is no one left to develop for it except the people who do it for purely philosophical reasons.
The dream of Open Software on Open Hardware will die at the hands of Apple, Who owns their Platform and is a jealous (litigous) god. Remember the clones. Check Apples current specs against the old clones. Look at the advancements the PC has made in the same time. What you will find is two years of stagnation. This might change, but without competition on the platform, it is extremely unlikely.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
"One interesting point (and something I hope someone who understood the issue a bit more than I did at the time would comment on)... is Netscape claimed the W3C was going too slow. Instead of waiting for the new official standard, they simply implemented functionality that was being discussed for the new standard. The question is, did this forced the W3C to speed up their publication of new standards?"
I see what you're saying. You know what really pissed me off (and turned me into an Opera user)? It's when MS removed all support for 'Netscape Style Plugins' from IE6. Thus, anybody who makes a plugin that works on both Netscape and IE now has to make an ActiveX control.
This is a pretty clear example of MS screwing up the standards. I wish I had remembered this when I made my original post. I'd withdraw it now if I could.
The worst part is nobody really knows why MS pulled the support. A lot of people jumped to th conclusion that MS was just trying to put Netscape out of their misery. I'm not so sure about that. A friend of mine said he read somewhere that there is a patent on running executables from a web page and that whoever owns it sued MS and won, but didn't sue Netscape or anybody else. Thus MS had to pull their support. Im not really sure if I believe this, but it is interesting that MS yanked support so suddenly. Beta versions of IE6 worked just fine with plug-ins. I don't think MS had planned that all along, I think the decision was made rather suddenly.
Whether or not they did it because they're evil or because they lost a lawsuit isn't relevant at this point. The fact that MS didn't provide a single reason as to why they made such a change is what bothers the hell out of me. The most I could get was 'for security reasons...'.
I see your point guys, wish I saw it before I started posting.
"Derp de derp."
Sun must compete with SGI, HP, Compaq, and IBM for that market share. If you want Linux you do not have to buy Sun. If you want OS X, YOU MUST BUY APPLE. If I want big iron, I can get Sparc, Alpha, Mips, Itanium and even Power4 from IBM
"For what it's worth, everyone in the industry knows that they cancelled the clones because Apple lost major market share to them"
Why did they lose market share to them? Come on, think man. They lost market share because the clone makers were producing equivalent hardware, albeit less stable (probably because of intentional documentation errors in Apple's specs), at half Apple's price.
To quote the other asshole, "Developers developers, Developers, Developers". Microsoft open sources a piece of code to attract colleges that generate Developers for their platform. Fucking computer games have turned into a 9 billion dollar a year industry, as big an industry as the motion picture industry for god's sake. And Microsoft made a play for the whole ball of wax by releasing X-Box. They hoped to snare Developers from competing consoles, making them realize developing for x-box meant an easy port to the PC. They hoped all the existing Direct X developers would develop for X-box exclusively so they could take a bigger cut of the games market. How does their cut get bigger? They OWN THE FUCKING HARDWARE. Develop for X-Box and not PC and Microsoft gets a bigger cut of the 9 Billion dollar pie. X-Box II will not include nVidia or Intel. They are going to try to do the damn thing in house.
They learned that little lesson from APPLE just like everything else.
So, Apple is stealing GPL developers. How obvious is it? How about a fucking contest to port apps over to Apple! How often have YOU switched development platforms? IT'S A BIG THING. Apple is stealing our intelligence pool. The worst thing is everyone here believes their BULLSHIT. sheep led to slaughter.
Pay the fucking $1000 Apple TAX for their inferior crap hardware. Don't fucking buy into the GPL and then choose CLOSED HARDWARE. We might all own the software and share it as we like, but if the software will only run on ONE HARDWARE VENDORS CRAP, we OWN JACK SHIT.
Fuck, You are a moron, aren't you.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
Unlike Apple's current OS, which runs on x86, a platform they don't even sell.
This really interests me. I like would love it if this happened. But the only references I could find for it were April Fool's day jokes and a story on slashdot from late January. Where are the vendor supplied drivers and extentions? Where is the retail boxed CD? Where are the gloating screenshots of OS X benchmarks on dual Xeon systems? Where is the review on Ars Technica, who would absolutely, without question post this as HUGE NEWS?
Show me. _Post_ _one_ _fucking_ _link_ _you_ _troll_.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
That's funny, I don't remember having to register to download any other "free" as in "freedom" open source software. Apple has sold my personal information before. They'll not have the chance again.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
Thank you, now where did you say aqua was?
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
Ah, well, I guess I deserve it for parodying outmoded European humour. Maybe something from Austin Tayshus?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Here is a neat story from today.
Make sure you cheack out the refrenced stories and their references too.
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.