What's the Business Case for Microsoft and Open Source?

Friend of perl developers everywhere, Jeremy Zawodny, has an intriguing question: "If you had to explain to Microsoft why they should change their attitude toward Open Source, what would you say?" For more about this, read on... From Jeremy: "If you had to explain to Microsoft why they should change their attitude toward Open Source, what would you say? More to the point, how can Microsoft benefit from better supporting or even adopting Open Source in their business? (Replace IIS with Apache, for example.) Does it make sense for them? Are there ways that they can use Open Source as a competitive advantage without pissing off the Open Source community in the process? Which of their products would make sense on Open Source platforms? How can the Open Source community help Microsoft? Or is this a lost cause? IBM has made it work. Can Microsoft?

I ask these questions because I may have the chance to talk with folks at Microsoft about Open Source. And it only makes sense that I look to the community for input. So let's hear it. Flames won't help. Thoughtful answers and ideas very well could."

Comments

How does open source make a profit?

[StudMuffin]

Microsoft is a corporation, bound to it's shareholders, and is chartered to make a profit. In order to adopt an open source mentality, it would need to be demonstrated that open source is as profitable as closed-source projects. And, in the many years of the open source movement, I have not seen many open source projects that are highly profitable. So, therefore, I don't think that there is an argument that would convince microsoft to change their approach, other than federal injunction.

Re:How does open source make a profit?

[smagruder]

In order to adopt an open source mentality, it would need to be demonstrated that open source is as profitable as closed-source projects.

When a corporation gets as big and profit-positive as Microsoft, their central and overriding goal is to get an extremely high return on any investment they make. Any projects that make only small profits are rejected in favor of the biggest cash cows, which are oftentimes of less value to the public than the projects with small profits. Companies like this get into the mentality that they are entitled to continued high profits and will do anything to maintain that, even skirting or breaking anti-trust law. They won't allow anything to get in the way of their income, even if they have to do evil things.

Anyone who looks at history will know IBM used to be what MS is now, until they got slammed with their own anti-trust suit and simultaneously was selling overpriced products from an old paradigm they were desperately trying to prop up. I'm very confident that the past will be prologue here.

Security, for starters

[Brento]

As a guy who has to support IIS in mission-critical apps, I'd have to say that it would give them a lot of credibility in the enterprise if they opened the source just for IIS, for starters. At least once a quarter, somebody in our organization asks why we're not using Apache yet, and with the IIS security problems that crop up all the time, it's getting harder to answer that question.

I know what their answer is going to be, though. They don't want to open up IIS because it will expose all of the existing installations to attacks until patches are written. They'd rather keep it closed to protect the morons who don't apply patches than to open it up to fix the rest of the holes.

You misunderstand the reasons...

[Krapangor]

for Microsofts attitude toways open source.
Unlike the pro-open source evangelists like RMS, ESR etc. the whole pro and cons OSS thing is not an ideological question for MS.
The problem is that some open source program are a threat to MS market dominance. And MS gained that dominance by ruthlessly destroying all competitors. They act shark like - see, attack, kill. This made them the no. 1 in the software business. And not the quality of their products. (Some of their products are good despite what OSS zealots say.) If they give up their attitude towards OSS, they would have to give up their attitude towards competitors. And this would destroy their market dominance, making them an ordinary software company like any other.

So, "convincing MS of the benefits of OSS" is nonsense. There is no real benefit for them and they will never be convinced. And they have at least one very good argument for their behavoir - their outstanding economic success. You cannot convert a predator to a vegetarian.

Re:M$ is doomed

[mumblestheclown]

How about some new mod options for Slashdot?

• score -1, naive
• score -1, simplistic

This is a serious proposition and about as objectively applicable as "-1, Troll"

unlikely

[Elaine_r]

Microsoft is very unlikely to adopt an open source development model for a number of reasons

• Some of the code used within microsoft products is licensed to microsoft not owned by them (so they are paying royalties to third parties, and connot disclose other peoples closed source code)
• microsofts business model isn't suitable for open source, unlike the likes of IBM, who make money from hardware and support as well as the software (Xbox, mice and keyboards being the exceptions) MS relies on other companies and vendors providing support, very few people get support from microsoft directly (if you buy an official copy, rather than an OEM copy, you'll probably be disapointed with the ammount of support you do get) The likes of IBM it really doesn't matter which OS they ship with there products they still provide the support (Be it a MS OS, linux or AIX etc..)
• profit margins would decrease and copetition would increase dramitically in the sector which MS operates, and share holders wouldn't be happy, probably neither emploies when cost cutting is needed, one of the many problems with a monopoly (which shouldn't be allowed anyway!, if governments can regulate monopolies shuch as water, gas, electric, mail, telephone etc, whats the problem with regulating the likes of MS?)

personally I'd be happy if MS would just adopt and adhere to open standards, even if there code wasn't open, at least then MS systems would be able to operate with other things without a lot of effort wasted on reverse engineering (is it a fault with 3rd party apps/sytems or is it an undocumented feature of MS? - most CEO's and the likes toe the MS party line so the 3rd party apps/systems are at fault, which in alot of cases is just plain wrong)

Green envy and spam

[NZheretic]

With apologies to Dr "Suse", to the tune of "Green Eggs and Ham".

Linux can. Linux can .Use Linux

That Linux can! That Linux can! I do not like that Linux can!

Do you like open sourcing plan?

I do not like that Linux can. I do not like the open sourcing plan.

Would you like to free source share?

I would not like to free source share. I would not like it anywhere. I do not like open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.

Would you like it very stable? Would you like it to enable?

I do not like it very stable. I do not like it to enable. I do not like to free source share. I do not like it anywhere. I do not like the open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.

Would you use it in a X-Box? Would you use it if it ROCKS?

Not on X-box. Not if it rocks. Not if very stable. Not to enable. I would not let them free source share. I would not let them anywhere. I would not allow open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.

Would you? Could you? In your biz? Use it! Use it! Here it is.

I would not, could not, in our biz.

You may like it. You will see. You may like it if it's free!

I would not, could not if it's free. Not in our biz! It should never be!

I do not like it on the X-box. I do not like it that it rocks. I do not like it amongst our biz. I do not like it that it is. I do not like they free source share. I do not like that anywhere. I do not like that Linux can. I do not like you Linux man!

service! service! service! service! Could you, would you, as a service?

Not as a service! Not if it's free! Not in my biz! Man! Let not it be! I would not, could not, on a X-box. I could not, would not, if it rocks. I will not use it if its stable. I will not use it even to enable. I will not let them free source share. I will not let them anywhere. I do not like open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.

Say! if in copyleft? always free copyleft! Would you, could you, copyleft?

I would not, could not, in copyleft.

Would you, could you, why so nervous?

I would not, could not, I'm NOT nervous. Not as copyleft. Not as a service. Not in my biz. Not if it's free. I do not like that it can, you see. Not if it's stable. Not on X-box. Not to enable. Not if it rocks. I will not let them free source share. I do not like it anywhere!

You do not like open sourcing plan?

I do not like that Linux can.

Could you, would you use what we wrote?

I would not, could not, use what you wrote!

Would you, could you, to avoid your bloat?

I could not, would not, avoid bloat. I will not, will not, use what you wrote. I will not compete with them as a service. I will not because it makes us nervous. Not in our biz! Not if it's free! Not if it is! You let me be! I do not like it on the X-Box. I do not like it that it Rocks. I will not use it if it's stable. I do not like that it does enable. I do not like they free source share. I do not like it ANYWHERE I do not like open sourcing plan!I do not like that, Linux can.

You do not like it. So you say. Try it! Try it! And you may. Try it and you may, I say.

Man! If you will let me be, I will try it. You will see.

Say! I like open sourcing plan! I do! I like that, Linux can! And I would use it because it's stable. And I could use it to enable...

And I could charge for providing a service. And I could copyleft without being nervous. And in my biz. And still source free. For you can still charge for a service fee!

So I will use it on the networked X-box. And I will promote it because it ROCKS. And I will use it because it's stable. And I will use it to enable.

And I will use it here and there. Say! I can use it ANYWHERE!

I do so like open sourcing plan! Thank you! Thank you, Linux man!

By The Cat with the RedHat

Who cares? Either they're right or wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that Linux and open source are classic disruptive technologies. In this case the technology is not the OS itself (anyone here who can't name a dozen OS's in one breath?) but the GPL, the development model, and the worldwide linking of motivated developers into a slightly-cohesive competing co-operating group.

The GPL has provided a framework whereby a self-sustaining body of software has come into being. The body of developers don't rely on traditional business models to sustain themselves.

If Linux and open source become at all successful Microsoft is going to lose billions of dollars in revenue. Heck, they probably already are. I'm suprised they haven't sent the boys around to break RMS' and Linus Torvalds' kneecaps or roll over them with a bus.

This is a 'company' or community MS can't fight using traditional business models. They can't lower their prices enough to beat free. Many of open source products are at least of equivalent quality to MS products.

They've tried running attack PR campaigns, but to some extent attacking open source is as hard as attacking any other community spirited organisation, such as (for example) the Scouts or Guides, and all the bad press has so far rebounded on MS, it's a bit transparent after all. And how do you effectively attack people who are giving things away for free? It's like trying to claim that "Meals on Wheels" volunteers are evil because the food they deliver sometimes isn't absolutely perfect.

As an aside, I was in the Science Museum in London a few years ago and I saw a gas-fire powered room fan. The idea was that when it got too hot in summer, you lit this gas-fired engine and it turned a fan to blow (now warmer) air around the room to cool you down. It was a last trump of the old monopoly gas companies trying to show their product was as versatile as the new-fangled electricity. It shows the lengths an old monopoly would go to, to try and preserve their old business model in the face of a disruptive technology.

So, in a possibly vain attempt to get back on topic... I'll be interested to hear what you have to say. Because I feel only one of a few possibilities can actually happen. One is that open source limps along as a permanent embarrassing cousin to shrink wrap proprietary software. The other is that it more or less displaces shrink wrap commercial software.

My money is on the latter, and for a simple reason. MS has sent many companies down the tube by the simple expedient of knowing that the other company will eventually make a mistake, and then they are dead. MS has made many mistakes too - but the synergy of owning the OS and some popular apps meant they've had the revenue to recover from them, whereas companies reliant on a single app only had to trip once and they were gone.

Now the tables are turned. Open source isn't going away. If it can survive and get to where it has now, on an insignificant market share and difficult to use products, it isn't going away now it has growing market share and great things like KDE3 and Moz and GNOME and open office and so on that stand up against MS' core products.

Now it's MS that has to avoid making mistakes.... In my view that classic mistake they are making is concentrating on their market share and revenue rather than the customers. Look at the PR and mindshare disaster that Licencing 6 has proven to be. Just goes to prove the old saying that once a monopoly finishes dealing with it's competitors, it starts beating up on its customers.

MS contains some of the greatest developers in the world under one roof, probably THE greatest number of developers working for a single company. The problem is that so much of their work seems to be directed towards a 'scam' - keeping MS on top and killing other companies, rather than just turning out great products. It's proven a very effective strategy so far, the issue is can it survive against a community who isn't playing the same game?

So what can you say to MS about open source in general? It'll either eat them or live alongside them. Either way, they lose. And it's as inevitable as what happened to the horse and cart when the automobile was invented, and nothing they do can really change how this game is going to play out economically. So they may as well ignore it and hope it'll go away.

Hard sell.

[JordanH]

• IBM has made it work.

IBM is an OSS advocate because:

1. IBM wanted to get out ahead of the curve they saw as becoming an important force in the industry. Too late for MS to do that.
2. IBM wants to use high-quality OSS products/strategies against specific competitors. Those competitors include MS (and Sun). You'd have to convince MS to compete against itself or that they could negate OSS by using it themselves. Tough sell, as it would involve a substantial loss of revenue.
3. IBM wants to pump up their services and OSS needs lots of services. A possible angle for MS, but again, tough as they already have their own products for every niche that already have a support strategy in place, and that strategy doesn't involve opening up the source and let the community fix your bugs.
4. IBM wanted to field a line of mature products for the .com boom and using OSS was the shortest path. That boom has gone bust.

If I were to approach it, I might challenge MS to think outside the box and compete against themselves.

Take Apple's strategy of supporting an OSS-based OS (Darwin) and adding in strategic closed source bits to productize it. Perhaps they could move some small fraction of their $40 Billion war chest into support Darwin itself. Could you imagine the boost that Darwin would get from $4-$5 Billion? (Only 10-12% of the MS Cash holdings.) This could energize their developers on their current products to take OSS seriously and spur them to produce better products.

Perhaps more importantly, this could sap mindshare and community away from Linux. How many Enterprises would field an MS-supported Open Source OS before Linux? A lot, I think.

start with development tools

[primus_sucks]

I c# went totally open source, it would at least have that over Java. In my experience 95% of developers have a negative attitude toward M$, and making c# open might help with this. I think developer opinion is important because they often choose which products/languages to use. Personally I would never choose M$ development languages over Java because of the closed/platform dependant nature.

Re:Don't Fool Yourself

[Iamthefallen]

What's needed is a change in the way MS developers think, with this I mean the people using Visual Studio etc to build solutions for the MS platform. If they start adapting Open Source more, then THEY will start pushing MS. With most MS platform developers being used to buying, and selling, their apps without source code and with a restrictive license, there's no demand on MS at the moment to go Open Source.

However, it's not likely to happen as long as Open Source is pushed by zealots (*cough* RMS *cough) who have nothing to say about MS (or M$) apart from some rant about how they suck, preferably in 1337 5p34k.

There are a lot of gains from sharing source and solutions, but, that culture just doesn't exist in the MS platform developers mind, thus there's little pressure on MS to even consider it as a policy.

Microsoft Linux

[internet-redstar]

Fact: "30% of Microsoft its revenue comes from the Operating System licensing alone."

This means they'll do practically anything to protect that.

Linux is moving quickly to 'embrace and extend' Windows with projects like wine, wineX and CrossOffice getting very good.

The Linux-Windows war used to be a kernel war initially, but soon it will be a win32 api war. If Microsoft doesn't launch it's version of Windows with a linux kernel underneath (MacOS X system architecture), they'll loose massive market share in the bigger enterprise market and OEM's. If that happens, all will be lost for Microsoft.

They currently are in a position to create a 'Microsoft Linux'; a linux kernel with their dll-base inserted with a proprietary kernel module (kernel fork needed because of Linus' policy). In that case they would be able to create the best 'Lindows' around, possibly loose some market space with applications like IIS being replaced with Apache and such, but with again a dominant position in the Intel OS marketplace.

Microsoft is afraid of such a move, because it'll be expensive and because of the antitrust suit (although, such a move could settle it: "We will make the following version of our kernel OpenSource").

BTW, Microsoft currently already sponsors certain GNU development, like with Perl on NT.

Conclusion:
- A Linux system running windows apps is a huge opportunity for the enterprise market and OEM's.
- If that happens MS will have lost their foundation. Either they try to make the ultimate mix of their Intellectual Property and the OpenSource world, or they'll face utter destruction. They have a window of oppertunity here, but wine is getting better fast!
- Getting them to understand this is quiet simple: they initially had the same fear of the Internet and the old MS guys understand the comparisation: the Internet was a chaotic and anarchistic network, Bill Gates said "they would never invest in it". Time has proven the contrary.

To beat a Microsoft Linux, we just need to work a little harder on wine and its integration in the desktop environments.

www.microsoftlinux.com

Answer the question, folks!

[Spurion]

It's hard to believe that, even among "the Community" itself, so many people are barking up the wrong tree. The question asked about open source software, not free software. Obviously Microsoft can't justify free (beer) software to its shareholders. The relevant, and more subtle, question is whether Microsoft can justify releasing its source code. Releasing source code is distinct from giving away software.

Bear in mind, that Microsoft already does reveal its source code to people who pay enough. However, if it supplied its source code to anyone who bought the built product (even with side-conditions that the source could not be used to commercial advantage etc etc), that would still constitute open source software. And the advantage to Microsoft would be many, many more knowledgeable people finding bugs. And the disadvantages would be that someone might pinch some ideas from it to help a competing product and also that a million custom patches for their products would appear, and be sure to interfere with each other.

Re:Don't Fool Yourself

[Iamthefallen]

open source != free as in beer
open source != free as in speech
Open source means the source is open, yes, this means it might be used without permission. open source to me is sharing information, not giving away work for free. Allow people to view the sourcecode, but license and charge for the app.

Mostly like any HTML page is today. Design theft occurs occasionally, but still there are plenty of people who pay web developers to build a site for them. If HTML code was compiled and unreadable, what would the web be today? Didn't most of us learn website coding by copying HTML/CSS/Script snippets from other pages? Has the webdesign industry died because of it?

Problem is, we (as in MS developers) are used to HTML being open source, but anything else must be hidden or someone will steal it for sure!
We need a change of culture and way of thinking is all.

Microsoft cannot go open source

[defile]

Microsoft is the only successful proprietary software product company. That is, they're the only company that can sell shrink-wrap software (or user licenses), walk away from them, and still make billions of dollars.

Every other proprietary software company must back up their products with service and support or they're kaput. These are the companies you can possibly convince to open source since their true business is supporting their products or supplying services based on them.

Microsoft going open source would be throwing away an extremely lucrative and unique monopoly.

* Games are an exception, and you may find some niche companies with a similar business model.

Selective Open Source might make sense...

[dinotrac]

It's hard to know where Microsoft would benefit from Open Source (remembering that they can already, ahem, borrow BSD'd and similar code) without knowing how much each product contributes to the company financially and how much each product costs, but, if I were to hazard a few guesses, it would be these:

1. IIS==>bit bucket
IIS does not dominate its market and has a wretched reputation. IIS extensions are available under apache, and the apache license would allow Microsoft to make its own proprietary extensions to a Microsoft-supported license.

It would make a world of sense for MS to bite the bullet, declare apache their web server, and add MS-only content in the form of proprietary mods.

2. SQL Server.
Big asterisk here. If SQL Server contributes serious net dollars, I might continue to ride it for a while.

However, SQL Server faces fierce competition at the high end from Oracle and DB2. The continued visibility of Open Source is exposing it to danger in the middle from solutions like PostgreSQL and MySQL, products that conspire to take the profit out of the segment.

I can't help but think that Microsoft could learn something here from the tremendous success of Access. Nobody buys Access because it's a great database. They buy Access because it's a database they can use. Microsoft can open up SQL-Server or they could even get more radical:
base a new database on PostgreSQL, perhaps with extensions to ensure that current SQL-Server databases are cleanly supported.

Then, without having to R&D the database (and, not coincidentally, gaining a marketing point in terms of customer flexibility), focus on proprietary tools that make developing and admining the thing easier. Maybe special additions (as separate proprietary products) to help exploit the Windows platform.

3. The Access back-end.
As I said, nobody buys Access because it's a great database.

4. Outlook Express.
A little danger here, because it might make it easier to clone Exchange. However, this could be a sort of "reverse-samba": Outlooks showing up in all kinds of strange places and on all kinds of strange platforms where it never lived before. Why? PHBs. Nuff said.

5. NetMeeting.
C'mon, guys. The whole purpose of NetMeeting is to let people in remote locations participate in a meeting. MS doesn't charge for the basic client, anyway. Opening this means that Windows can communicate with anyone else using the NetMeeting softwareThis one seems like a no-brainer, especially as a revenue stream might be found in enhanced software for originating sites as opposed to mere participants.

6. Whatever MS calls it's instant messenger.
That would be a great stab at Yahoo and AOL, and, for MS, wonderful irony.

Anyway, those a re a few of my ideas.

Here's what they will surelly call a troll...

[rknop]

Microsoft needs to change its attitude towards Open Source for the same reason that the dinosaurs needed a near-earth asteroid search.

Unfortunately for them, they are as likely to understand Open Source as the dinosaurs were to understand the technology necessary for a near-earth asteroid search.

Unfortunately for us, the analogy is also likely to work in that it took the dinosaurs hundreds of millions of years to go extienct, and similarly Microsoft is likely to be around and dominating the planet for some time to come....

-Rob

Nobody buys Access because it's a great database

[abe ferlman]

3. The Access back-end.
As I said, nobody buys Access because it's a great database.


Yeah, and they'll never improve that back end because it drives sales of SQL server. Let me make this perfectly clear: making Access a better product would cannibalize sales of SQL Server, so MS will never make it good

Making good products is at odds with market segmentation. This is one of the fundamental benefits of free software- there is no market segmentation for code so the perfect never becomes the enemy of the good, as we see in the Access situation.

Not as antagonistic as you might think

[zzyzx]

I'm not quite sure who you will be talking to and what exactly you mean, but if you're talking to the programmers, prepare to be surprised at the attitude. I was a contractor at Microsoft. What language did I program in? Perl. While there, I worked alongside Linux advocates and other free software fans. I heard more Windows bashing there than I have at my non-M$ jobs. The programmers there are geeks. They're likely to already agree with you.

Now if you're talking to the marketing or legal departments, good luck. I don't know if they can even turn on their computers.

Microsoft should not change to open source.

[fmaxwell]

It is not in Microsoft's interest to change to open source. They have a tremendously successful business model making them one of the richest companies in the world. They are the sole-source supplier for the most popular computer software in the world. There is no rational reason for them to switch to selling and/or supporting open-source software.

Sure, we can all bitch about Microsoft products' security holes. We can gripe about performance and architectural issues. And many of those complaints are valid ones, but Microsoft is not in business to produces the most secure, high-performance, well-designed software in the world. Microsoft is in business to make money -- which they do very well.

The only rational points to argue are:

1. Microsoft's continued attacks on the open source movement are damaging their credibility and hurting their customers, many of whom want to integrate open source products into their Microsoft networks.

2. Microsoft's data storage and transmission formats should be opened up to allow value-added third-party vendors to produce products that use and manipulate the data. All that leaving the formats closed accomplishes is a delay while third-parties reverse engineer them.

3. Continued battles with the open source community are going to result in more public outcry for anti-trust action.

4. Microsoft has a PR problem right now due to their insistence on software audits at cash-strapped school systems, security holes, the Justice Department case against them, etc. Extending an olive branch to the open source movement might help reduce that PR problem.

Above all, remember that Microsoft is a for-profit business. They aren't going to get teary-eyed when you tell them about the comaraderie and inspiration that you feel when working on open-source products. They don't want to be part of some big, happy family. They want to rule the world.

Software as a service

[seldolivaw]

IBM has changed its business model: they no longer sell software products; they sell a "solution to a problem", which they use some of their own software products to solve. They provide a service, which is what their customers need, and it provides them with steady, subscription-style income that fosters a better and more honest relationship with their clients than the hit-and-run attitude developed by salespeople who only need to sell a product once. Plus, because it's clear from the outset that they're going to be selling a service, customers don't get pissed off (as they do with Microsoft) having to pay continuous fees. Make no mistake, both companies charge continuously: however, Microsoft charges for support (which gets people pissed off -- the product is supposed to work without help!) while IBM charges for the service (which includes support when things go wrong). It's the same thing, but with important psychological differences on both sides.

Microsoft is already seeing the value of selling services rather than products (spurred by the success of subscription-based AOL) and is slowly moving to software-as-a-service. However, their legacy of selling expensive products is making software-as-a-service very unpopular with their customers, who see it only as a way of charging many times for a product they used to buy only once. By changing their model to being entirely service-based, they would be free to use open source wherever it happened to be better than their in-house solutions (e.g. Apache) without it costing them any revenue. They could then contribute to the open-source products they use just like everybody else does.

Apple

[ciryon]

It's interesting to see Apple and how OS X uses an Open Source kernel (Darwin). Why shouldn't Microsoft be able to do the same thing?

They can keep closed sourced programs and user interface portion, but why not open up the kernel?

Ciryon

Re:OS license cost

[Zeinfeld]

You use VB for RAD, you use C when you need power, doesn't mean one is better than the other, they have different purposes and solve different problems.

Once this was the case, however the real importance of C# is that it finaly merges the Basic and C code development lines. At this point C# provides the full power of C (with some bizare omissions like structure initializers) plus the convenience of VB. The market perception that C# is about Java is only really 40% right, C# is pitched against Java because Java is the language to beat, but the real target audience is Visual Basic programmers who would like a programming language that is as easy to prototype in as a scripting language while still allowing very large projects to be supported.

Equally the suggestion in the intro to the article that Microsoft should switch from IIS to Apache is amazingly clueless. Apache is a great Web server for UNIX boxes, but IIS is a better Web server for NT. IIS is integrated into the O/S at a very fundamental level so that for example the Web server can use the system level file protections to control access to Web resources.

The features that have caused security problems with both Apache and IIS are active code. In the case of IIS three scripting langauages are integrated into the Web server (and more can be added). In the case of Apache the security weaknesses inherent in the CGI design (particularly when a CGI module is written in csh) leads to predictable problems. I don't see that a real difference can be made between the OSS and Microsoft approach here, both groups adopted what is an intrinsically insecure architecture for reasons of expediency and ignorance. Once the feature was in there was no way for the grown ups to take it out again because people used the feature.

I recently started using Visual C#, its the best program development environment I have seen since the VAX LSE. The editor does have some iritating features (like the lack of mouse-less editing), but it does have a lot of cool features like bringing up the template for a method as you enter it - even for user defined methods. The IDE looks and feels like a professional tool, there are few traces of ego-centric features that looked cool to the designer but are not so great for the user - although as with XMLSpy the editor makes the bizare assumption that my preference for editing XML Schemas is through some bizare graphical language of the authors invention rather than as XML schema.

Compare Visual Studio with the UNIX - Emacs - Make IDE and I am afraid the comparison is not favorable to open source.

I am much less interested in open source than I am in extensibility. Unless you want to do a security audit the only reason to want source is to maintain or extend a program. I much prefer a well written and supported extension mechanism than someone chucking a few meg of code at me. The .NET extension mechanisms allow me to write my own language and then use Visual Studio as my IDE for it - and get all the debugging, assistant etc. features for free. That seems somewhat better to me than creating a fork of the emacs and gcc tree for my new language and recreating all those features.

YMMV, but those people who believe that OSS is the one true faith are wrong. There is plenty of room for both models in the market of ideas.

Re:Don't Fool Yourself

[Zeinfeld]

Anyone who says *opensource* is doomed to fail, then say "oh yea, obviously, that whole HTML thing was just a fluke, sure glad it died out in the earily 90's after every READ EVERYONE ELSE'S CODE, LEARNED HTML AND MADE THEIR OWN PAGES!"

HTML was not open source. It is an open specification. There are open source browsers writen to that specification but the specification is not the code.

Also the libwww code written at CERN is not open source, it is public domain. There is a big difference. If you modify libwww there are no limits on what you do with it, you can make the modification closed source.

We did not write the license that way because we were ignorant of RMS's politics, far from it. The license was written that way so that companies such as Spyglass and Microsoft could build systems built on our code if they wanted to.

As for reading people's HTML to write code - thats a bug not a feature. The original idea was that the browsers would have the ability to edit Web pages so the end users did not have to learn HTML. Also HTML was originally much cleaner than the current spec which has countless enhancements added in by Netscape in an attempt to make the spec proprietary during the pre-Microsoft browser wars against Spyglass and the Web Consortium. Thats why we have six incompatible mechanisms to change fonts but none of the standard browsers support math markup - bit of a lose for a technology meant to be for scientific publication eh?