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'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
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.
As opposed to now, where I can install a driver by *gasp* clicking on it and selecting "install"
/etc/apt/sources.list - and then your drivers could be upgraded in much the same way as Windows upgrades Messenger and other apps)
I'm missing something here..... (apt-get install xserver)
(Note, Linux is not as crippled as you make out, it's just that people don't make the best possible usage of systems such as apt-get and it's "competitors". These are in fact, much nicer - as the driver vendor would have a script (you'd have to come up with some sort of delivery system, but that wouldn't be too complicated - this could add a single line to a resource such as
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
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.
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).
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
"2) the Linux kernel changes almost daily, while Windows stagnates for 3-5 years at a time."
Stagnates? One of the reasons that Windows makes a good Desktop OS is that it doesn't change that much over time. As a tweaker and a twiddler, it's fun to go in and make every little update that you can. But consider the major desktop audience. They want their computer to be as simple as 'turn on, do stuff, turn off.'.
For Linux to try to de-throne Windows, it will have to be a lot more like Windows. Unfortunately, I think most of the Linux community barfs at this concept. Driver installs, for example, are a lot easier to do because Windows 'stagnates', or as I prefer to call, sticks to its standard.
Unfortunately the Win9X line could never be considered a serious OS, just too unstable and inflexible. Because of this, a lot of people like to look at what's wrong with Windows and try to fix those problems. They forget to look at what they did right. Linux would seriously benefit from that if it seriously wants to battle Windows where it is strongest.
Personally, I think Linux is better off staying off of the average desktop. The people who love it so much today will lose a lot of what they love in the process.
"Derp de derp."
"I'm missing something here..... (apt-get install xserver)"
.)
:) It is just downloading an EXE and running it from your browsers cache, then letting clicking through the standard boring 'yada yada yada' screens that almost any driver have.
:)
:) ) Windows actualy typicaly tends to just disable that singular device now days more often then it refuses to boot.
How to install drivers on windows (the more or less insecure way, but hell, executables by their very nature. . .
goto manufacturers web site
goto driver page
click driver
select 'run from'
wait
wait
wait
wish you had broadband (hahah, I do. Yah!)
Click yes
Click next
Click next
Click "I agree that j00 0wn my s0ul"
Click done
enjoy.
Ok so A LOT of clicking is involved, but it is MUCH more intuitive them guessing at WTF you need.
Windows also has the advantage that the WORST that can possibly go wrong is that you have to hit a key at startup and select use last best config. Handy that.
Umm, what exactly IS the worst that installing an improper driver under Linux can do to ya anyways? I know that under the MS system that it USED to be able to cause hardware damage, but that is pretty much none existent now (as windows is far more likely to shit out then go on running hardware with the wrong driver, or it will shitout when some serious incompatability is found, take your pick.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Well, it is. Now, whethor or not a threat to capitalism is a good or bad thing is left to the reader to determine.
I disagree. Capitalist businesses will benefit greatly by not having to pay for restrictive software licenses.
Although I don't have hard data, I would venture that most people in software are not employed writing and testing closed source products that are sold, but making custom mods for internal use, supporting installed systems, doing system installation and integration and other services. These endevours can all benefit from Open Source.
Furthermore, the closed source companies seem to be doing OK. Microsoft is making record profits. Oracle, Siebold, SAP all seem to be unaffected, so far, from Open Source.
Open Source represents competition to the Closed Source companies, but I believe that everyone benefits from competition. For example, the improved reliability of W2K and WXP over earlier offerings is, IMHO, a direct reaction, to some extent, to Linux and FreeBSD. I think that MS has actually benefitted from this renewed focus on stability. You can actually learn your best lessons from your competitors, if you are listening.
All this speculation about how OSS will kill the software companies is, so far, just speculation.
Actually, it will have to be a lot better than windows
Interestingly, I was at an Entrepreneurial Conference put on by SEA (www.sea.org.au) in 1999, and a gentlemen pointed out that you'll never be successful making a better product, You're successful by making your product different.
To be quite honest, open source products are not going to be chosen simply because they are "better" - you have to show the consumer what's in it for them, what the product is going to give them over the competition.
One cannot think of Microsoft products individually, the difference/value that Microsoft provides its customers is a family of integrated/all work-together products. That's where Microsoft's success is: in it's product cohesion.
Cohesion/Consistency is what the consumer wants and ironically are willing to put up with a few BSODs every week (tho if you've used XP, this is a hell of a lot less...). Most "Joe Average's" I know associate "free" with "cheap/nasty". Until such times as Open-source products can get past this mis-informed attitude, then it will be relegated to the back office and those adventurous souls that actually know better.
As for Microsoft and Open-source co-existing? I think today that Microsoft would probably be happy as far as the consumer market is concerned... However, in the server arena they are more worried...
-- Dan "Maybe I should have done marketing instead of Software Engineering" Thomas =)
I would love to see MS cooperating with open and free software as much as the next /.er (actually, I am not too certain how much that is), but this point strikes me as a) unfair and b) unworkable. While it's certainly reasonable to hold a company to a standard (which makes competition more fair) it's hardly reasonable to expect them to baby-sit a competing product (which would not help fairness in competition). And we can't epect them (much as we dislike them) to be held accountable for things that are not under their control, but under the control of a competitor.
sic transit gloria mundi
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.
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
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.
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....