Slashdot Mirror
Optimizing Linux Advocacy Efforts
An anonymous reader writes "Open source advocate Tony Stanco, of the George Washington University Cyberspace Policy Institute has been getting flamed for allowing Microsoft reps to speak at an Open Source in government conference he's putting on next month. Today, in a commentary on NewsForge, Tony responds to the flamers. He says, "Leave it to the kooks in the community to make Microsoft look sympathetic." Is he right? Should we be willing to listen to what Microsoft has to say? Aren't open minds important to open source?" Newsforge and Slashdot are both part of OSDN.
Microsoft isn't the only one hurting open source. Many of the elitists do just a good of a job at giving opensource a bad name.
Isn't the popular opinion here that quality sells itself? Right tool for the right job? Then advocate by making Linux better, not giving speeches.
Yes, it it. You need to have all points of view covered if you want to do something right otherwise it just comes across as rampant fanboyism. Having M$ at an OS conference is a great idea. If M$ wants to stand up and fight AGAINST OS, then they'll have to do it on someone else's terms. I for one would like to see that.
What better place to have a discussion about the relative merits of Open and Shared Source than at an open source conference? There's probably no better way to get lots of people who care about it together at once.
You can't prove or convince anyone without reasonable and open debate, and you can't have an honest debate without fairly representing both sides of an issue.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
... is open formats. If the Govn't decides that MS Word is their choice of word processors, so be it. But as a citizen of that Govn't, I should be able to use whatever software I want to view those documents - so either the .doc format needs to be open enough for OpenOffice.org to code to it, or the Govn't needs to use things like Rich Text or PDF files or whatever I can open using *my* choice of software.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Silly - you know MS bashes don't get karma on Slashdot anymore, if they ever did. I see far more guys like you complaining about "Linux Fanboys" being modded up then I see anyone even being pro-Linux.
These days, if someone says something positive about Linux, they are not only modded down, but have a horde of anti-anti-MS-Zealots complaining about how unfair Slashdot is.
If you take away the right of Microsoft to present their side, corporations are going to wonder what exactly it is you're trying to hide.
If the open-source products are to become a viable player in the Fortune 500 world, all of the players in the game must be allowed to present their side or mistrust results. The suits aren't about to let a bunch of arrogant open-source biggots tell them how to run their business. If the open-source community wants respect, they're going to have to GIVE respect (even if it means not receiving it in return). It's time to start behaving like professionals, people.
-- People who hate Windows use Linux. People who love UNIX use BSD.
Usually people making negative waves grab more attention than people putting positive effort into something. Medias seem to love giving bad press.
If you're so confident about your platform outperforming another's platform, you should leave that other platform talk without even flaming back because you "know" that they won't be up to the match.
Reacting immaturely, flaming, crying out loud will not only look "kiddy", but will also get a press coverage like "Today, the conference was marked by a lot of people against [...]" and so on. Is that the kind of press that is needed?
I am not pro-MS or pro-Unix. If Flamer's argument is that microsoft keeps everything closed and are doing behind the door tactics, wouldn't it look more mature to simply accept the fact that they want to talk, and if you are confident about your platform, you could even make a debate. Usually people attending that kind of conference aren't idiots, if MS talks vague and conceptually like they love to do with their "marketting and PR" tactics, in the real world, with an intelligent and knowledgeable audience, I'm sure someone will bring them down to earth with insightful questions, and heck, you might even gain extra points beating their arguments live in the process.
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
Personally, I'd love to be there to witness the heckling, if nothing else.
But if Microsoft pulls off a good presentation on "Shared Source", it should be of interest to all. There are the elements of competition (did I say that in the same sentence as Microsoft?) and commerce in software. Coders must earn a living too and I don't think the OSS [business] model has gelled yet.
Dare I say it, perhaps microsoft could offer some insight on how too make money with open (or "shared") source? I'm certain the topic has been bothering them for some time now, so I'm sure they've some thoughts on it.
From the article:
What the loons on the extreme of the extreme don't understand is that Microsoft would love to have an excuse to not attend. Microsoft is not coming because it wants to. It is coming because it is compelled to.
It's Microsoft's government customers who want them there to explain themselves in public when they say that Shared Source is better than Open Source, instead of just talking that way in private. And it is the government that wants them to do it in front of Open Source supporters, so that they can hear both sides at the same time.
This sounds like a good idea. It forces them to state their views rather clearly in a discussion forum. What better way is there to scrutinize the issue than to hear both sides from the horses' mouths? If their "shared source is as good as open source" shpeal is just a bunch of rubbish then their arguements won't hold water. I'd be very interested to hear a compelling argument in their favor. Evaluating counter-arguments is a great way to formulate and solidify your opinion.
What could be better than to put a Microsoft rep on the spot? Ask him/her a few questions and listen to the answers. Why not use a few questions from an article from yesterday? It was something about the debate between Shared Source vs. Open Source. It's easy to "create" questions in your basement, it's making them "stick" what counts though.
I'd say make it a point to invite Microsoft to every Open Source conference. Let them speak and then ask questions.
Everyone who is pro OSS can grill MS and have a field day. This is a prime spot to ask the tough questions and pick apart the response, or laugh at the vacant stare from the helpless drone as he/she creates a cop-out answer
That's a naive attitude.
This isn't the movies, where the villain details his dastardly plot to the hero shortly before his demise. Microsoft has proven time and again that they're adept manipulators of the media, the public, and even engineers (.NET being "an open standard, free for anybody to implement", anybody?).
Like any troll you enounter on the 'net, you shouldn't feed them. You shouldn't pander them. You shouldn't pretend like what's coming out of their mouth isn't horse-shit on a stick.
Microsoft is on the defensive. They would like nothing better than to see FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) wiped off the face of the Earth. Microsoft employees and executives have admitted this on-record, though not in such colourful terms.
Anybody who's willing to give MS every opportunity to actually ACCOMPLISH that deserves just what they get. Remember, kiddies, this is Microsoft. They know what they're doing. They're going to use this opportunity to try and further their aims. You know what? That may include pretending to be a model member of the community ... for the time being. Don't play with the dragon, you're gonna get burnt.
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
Of course they should let Microsoft speak.
Dissention tempers ideas. Without hearing the other views of the world, how can anyone appreciate or even change what others see as wrong?
Sometimes an opposing view can even strengthen the resolve of the community it opposes. Heck, Microsoft may even drive more nails in their coffin.
How many of you out there haven't enjoyed a good argument with a Pro-Microsofty? Sometimes its just plain fun. So let them speak and have that fun on a bigger scale.
Gator/Claria is Spyware.
MS Rep: We have a well known operating system with established user interfaces, and is easily recognizable by people everywhere. We have the largest user base installment in the world. Thousands of applications, when installed using a single interface, will work without complicated kernel recompiling or device dependencies. We're a large corporation and, while that sounds like a bad word to many people, it means we have the resources and ability to help you 10 years from now when you're having trouble.
OS Rep: Yeah, well, M$ sucks.
On one hand, the Open Source community is better than they are. Just because Microsoft would never allow Linux or Open Source proponents at one of their functions does not mean we should lower ourselves to their level. We should demonstrate that we are bigger than that. Also, we have always been a community that values open discourse and the belief that the best technology/ideas should win based upon their own merits.
On the other hand, Microsoft's goal is FUD, not rational, logical, honest discourse. They could be a disruptive force to people who are trying to get honest work done. Also if someone publicly bashes you incessantly, calls you a cancer, lies about you, poisons your well, and threatens to kill you the first chance he gets, should you have to invite that person to your birthday party, regardless of how enlightened you are?
I read with interest about the optimization of Linux advocacy efforts, but at the risk of veering away from the main topic, I wonder about the wisdom of taking an open-source advocacy approach.
Sure it may look good on paper, but I wonder if these guys have thought about the opinion of the general public of Open Source/GNU/Linux etc.
I have been involved in the marketing (dirty word I know!) of software and hardware to non-technical people for a number of years. The consultancy group I work for numbers many of America's top blue-chip electronics and software corporations among its clients, I have over 11 years experience of marketing, and 4 years experience of software development (VB) and systems administration (NT 3.51), in addition to a marketing science qualification from one of America's top business schools - so it's safe to say that I know what I am talking about when it comes to computers and marketing.
I have been keeping an eye this forum for quite some time now, as part of my daily intelligence gathering, I find the robust exchange of views, and technical arguments make an interesting diversion from some of the other corporate bullshit I have to deal with in my working day. I also read corporate intelligence reports from the Gartner group, Forrester, the Meta group, and Olsen Online Business Intelligence Services. Slashdot has often proved to be far more accurate when it comes to the technical details,and I am often amazed at the incredible levels of intelligence and insight shown by its readership, some of whom demonstrate a knowledge of Linux and Operating systems far in advance of anyone I have ever met, even in the IS department of major corporations. For this reason, I feel I should contribute my 2c to the debate about the future direction of Linux and the whole Open Source movement in general.
I feel I can do my bit for the Open Source community by offering (free of charge) some of my hard-earned knowledge straight from the bloody trenches at the front-line of tech-Marketing. Normally I would be paid over $4000/day for my perspective, but Slashdot - this one's on me. You people can think of it as my small and unworthy attempt to "give something back" to the Community.
Why Linux/Open Source has an image problem in major US Corporations and what the community can do about it. Like any movment, political or religious, Open Source/Linux has its Leaders, High priests and Gurus. These high profile individuals represent the public face of the organization. Like it or not, these people are associated with the product in the eyes of the buying public. One of the first things the Linux movement must do in order to gain acceptence by middle-America and Joe-and-Jean Sixpack and their 2.4 kids, is to develop what we in the Marketing profession call a "Happy Face".
When Joe Sixpack drives past a McDonald's, he associates it with the smiling face of Ronald McDonald the clown,and quality food served quickly. When he is choosing a collect-call company, the smiling face of Al Bundy (of TV's Married with Children) springs to mind, and when he thinks of fried chicken in large capacity bucket-like containers, it is the image of the happy-go-lucky avuncular Colonel with his associations of good old Southern hospitality that sticks in his memory. (In marketing terms this is known as a "positive association". Because the image puts the consumer into a "buying-receptive" mental state).
Linux/Open Source lacks any kind of "Happy Face". Now this in itself is not a problem, were it not for the fact that Linux has several extremely high-profile advocates who are the exact opposite of "Happy Faces" in that they invite negative associations into the consumers head and put him/her into a state known by Marketers as "passive-aggressive sales-message rejection" (In layman's terms they don't want to buy the product).
Now, I will not lower the tone of the debate by naming names. I will give a few brief profiles and community members will know who I am talking about.
In reverse order of harmfullness we have the laconic, dour nothern European. Not known for his sense of hunor, and with far too many nights spent coding when he should have been out partying he creates an image of Linux as the OS of choice for "friendless geeks who never got laid". (note - I do not subscribe to this viewpoint, but trust me some of my focus group members do).
Then we have the good old gun-toting libertarian self-proclaimed open source guru. Although M.R. studies show that 78% of PC owners show right-wing bias this person is too wacko and off-the scale for them. He alienates them, and in the worst case scares them that they risk being physically harmed if they don't agree with his fundamentalist libertarian "philosophy".
Finally we have a bearded Communist hippy. Do I need to say any more ?
So the normal consumer associates Linux with a sucicidal friendless nerd from some godforsaken corner of Northern Europe, a plainly insane right wing lunatic, and an "alternative lifestyle" Communist throwback to Woodstock with a facial hair problem. Is it any wonder that time after time, the message comes back from my focus groups that Linux is for wierdos ?
Here are a few example comments from a focus group session from Q3 1999 in response to a question about their attitudes to Linux and open source software, you'll get the general idea.
"Linux - that's that geek system right ?"
"I tried Linux but it was too hard for me to install, then that guy flamed me on the newsgroups"
"I don't want any Open Source software because it is written by communists and I am concerned about security"
"My boss says Linux was written by Communists and Gun-Nuts"
"Linux is used by Communists who hate capitalism and Microsoft"
"Open source software cannot be any good because it is written by college students and hackers."
"Linux is not compatible with my USB peripherals"
"I would like to try Linux but my buddies would think I was a Commie"
I could go on and on with these genuine responses, but I think I've illustrated my point well enough. Linux has a serious image problem.
What to do about it is more problematic. Open Source proponents and Linux advocates are fiercely independent and proud of their alternative stance. They see any form of marketing as "selling out to da man" or "not groking it" or becoming a "suit" Any mention of money or financial rewards is derided, and developers are supposed to be content with "Kudos" from the community. Whilst this might be ok at college, or if you are tremendously wealthy, it cuts no ice with Joe Sixpack who was raised on Microsoft and associates Bill's millions with the quality of the software his company puts out. From the focus group again:
"If Bill (Gates) is worth that much money he must make the best software in the world."
"Microsoft must know what they are doing - the whole world uses their software."
"The best programmers work for Microsoft - they have the most tech-savvy hackers there."
"Microsoft spend millions on their software I think it is the best in the world. (referring to IE5)
Again the message is clear: Microsoft is winning the hearts and minds not only of Joe Sixpack, but also Juan Sixpack in South America, Jean-Paul Sixpack in France, Jeroen Van der Sixpack in the Netherlands, Nkwele-Olamu Sixpack in West Africa, Mohammed-Al-Sixpack in Iran, Kulwant Chandrasekhera Sixpack in India, and Boris Sixpack in the Russian Federation.
Their message is powerful, international, and presented relentlessly with no internal bickering and bitching.
What can be done ?
There are no easy answers. The Linux/Open Source community has proved unwilling or unable to accept critisim (even constructive criticism such as this) gracefully, preferring to mount foul-languaged assaults on the personal integrity of anyone who steps out from the party line.
I offer no easy solutions, however here are a few pointers:
1) As a damage limitation exercise Linux/GNU should appoint itself a "Marketing Spokesperson". This person would be the "official face of Linux/GNU/Open Source". First and Foremost, they would wear an expensive suit, especially when talking to the press or when dealing with high-profile major corporation with deep pockets and $$$s to spend. I realise this is ridiculous from a technical perspective, but with my blend of tech-savvy and marketing exprience, I realize the importance of presentation over technical merit. It goes against the grain of the community, but if we are to become the next Microsoft (and why else would we be in this game if not to win it at all costs), we must fight them on our battleground, but with the same weapons they use against us.
2) The Penguin logo MUST go ASAP. Although it seemed "cute" and funny at the time, in the eyes of the corporate MIS department it just looks juvenile. Linux needs a new logo, preferably one of those kind of eliptical ones with a swoosh that in the eyes of the public can mean one thing: Hip and cool DOTCOM Corporation. The logo should be bland, yet robust, non-controversial yet ahead of the curve, and toned in serious businesslike colors such as gray, silver, and white. It should transcend culture and religion to be internationally recognized like the Coca-Cola image is all over the world.
3) Downplay RMS, Linus, ESR, etc. They are technicians with zero understanding of the general public, or of software consumers in general. Indeed many of them only write their program for themselves to "scratch an itch". This is hardly the way to gain public acceptance.
4) Direct X - A MAJOR stumbling block on Linux's road to world domination is the lack of Direct X support for Linux. This trivial omission means that most games will not run on Linux. Linux could gain 1000's of new games by simply implementing the DirectX api. This is a no-brainer. Kernel support for XML would be a big performance booster too in the B2B and B2C application area, and would make Linux buzzword compliant for XML.
5) Finally FOCUS GROUPS. Before you think about starting that new open-source project, (be it a new web browser like Mazola, or simply a new front-end for the cdplayer application) Get a focus group together. Use a few minutes of your non-tech-savvy friend's time. If you don't have any friends like that, try your folks, or your grandparents. Ask them what they would like to see in your new program. This way, you will gain "market perspective" on the likely acceptance of your product by the "normal people" of the world.
thank you for your time
Seriously folks,
On any given day we hear "Fscking M$ dirty wh0r35 m0n0p0l15t p1gz" repeated over and over again on slash...
Yet we see MS visual studio products being advertised on slash, we see ads for powerpoint, ect on slash, we see stories about M$ on slash..
Don't you think it's time we stopped giving m$ "bad press"?
There's an old saying, even bad publicity is GOOD. Everytime there is a microsoft story here, the webmasters at M$ are laughing their collective asses off as all of us make their webstats jump from a good slash dot effect.
MS webmaster 1: Hey Taco! How much do you want today to post another anti ms story?
Taco: Well, I think I have enough money, The wife is already using it to line the cat litter box and I can't seem to find my keyboard underneath the piles of cash. It's overflowing into the backyard and the rain is turning it all into paper mache'.
MS webmaster 2: No problem! We'll just give you gold Dabloons! Those can last for years, even in saltwater!
Taco: Great, I'll take a million Dabloons then!
*note to taco: I know M$ can't be paying you that much, it's just a joke.
Instead of all the MS bashing, if you want to advocate linux in your company, you should think out what you are going to say before approaching management. Think about how you can use linux and open source software to replace existing infrastructure such as groupware, development tools, network file/print services and network management.
The best way for any admin to do this is to begin with 1 box. A buddy of mine loaded nagios onto the network he's in charge of and the executive level staff fell in love! He's slowly begining a march of replacement within the company, exchange being dropped in favor of postfix, now a web based groupware instead of exchange.
But the fanaticism has to end, this is not how civilized responsible people act. You have to look at the problem from all sides and rationally explain the situation instead of "GOD DAMN MONOPLILIST! WE SHOULDN'T USE THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE EVIL"
Thanks for reading my thoughts.
Well, for the simple reason of: What better way to highlight the advantages of Open Source than to show the (stark) opposite viewpoing?
That way it's not a "we rule, we're great" type of event and more of a "this is why we rule, this is why we're great".
It's about the contrast! I mean if you're passionate about something, defining in clear terms what you don't want is the best starting point for cheering!
Besides, saying it's a private conference seems a bit of the opposite effect of what open source wants to do! This isn't, after all a "proprietary" conference!
-Joe
If we're all god's children, what's so special about Jesus? - Jimmy Carr
Wonderful. Send them away. Tell them to come back when they get their act - in terms of open source software - together. Microsoft is bringing *nothing* to the table other than their "shared source" poison pill.
OK. And how is everyone to know that it's a poison pill, unless we discuss it directly with Microsoft in the open and get them to say as much? Until that's done, your "poison pill" is just theory and hearsay - it means nothing.
That's the beauty of free speech - it lets the villians show that they're a villian. Then when you know that thier cause is going to hurt you in some way, you can avoid helping them in thier cause or take appropriate steps to counter thier cause. If you shut them up, how do you know they have ill intent?
I say drag Microsoft into the conference kicking and screaming if needs be, so we can detail to others exactly what the poison in the pill is, and what to look for so everyone can avoid even putting that pill in thier mouth, let alone swallow it.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
Yes dialogue is important, even with Microsoft, but NO! MS should not be speaking at this particular forum.
It is certainly the case that we should listen to Microsoft. Yes we should understand their position and business strategies and their criticisms of open source practices and gaps.
However, none of this means MS should speak at this particular forum. The purpose of an event like this is to *advocate* open source and educate people on its benefits. It serves no purpose to hear the alternatives viewpoints *in such a forum*. Do the democrats and republicans invite each other to speak at their political conventions? No! Do they both agree that dialogue, finding common ground, and bipartisanship are extremely important sometimes (even often). Yes. But they don't do it at their conventions because it isn't thematic -- they've created other forums for doing so that serve the purpose of two way dialogue much better.
A convention is not the proper format for hearing from the opposition. Nobody would suggest that a convention is a format where dialouge, defined as two-way conversation occurs. No Q&A sessions do not count, because the audience and the presenter are not given equal footing -- the presenter has the mic and a huge advantage.
All that allowing them to speak does is lend legitimacy to the idea that their "shared source" initiative is a viable substitute worth examining. It's not, and the conference organizers should not give the mic to anybody who doesn't agree. If you want to hear the MS party line on shared source, you certainly have no shortage of opportunities to hear about it.
Why can't the person organizing and running the conference be allowed to decide who gets invited to speak and present?
If you want to have a "Paunchy Pale Perl Preacher's Pow-Wow", and happen to invite a deeply-tanned agnostic who programs in Python to speak - that's your right. Why are we second-guessing someone who's putting on a conference for government customers to meet Open Source Software up close and personal? If Tony thinks inviting M$ to speak is valid, maybe he has a point. After all, he's smart enough to get a gig at a place called the Cyberspace Policy Institute - he's probably also smart enough to realize the value of putting M$ and OSS up against one another in a public forum. It's NOT just a conference on Open Source - it's Open Source Software in Government. Speaking as a contracting creature, it's tough to sell - easier today than ten years ago, but non-trivial, whereas if you say you're buying Oracle, IBM, or M$, they just complain about the price - you won't get strange looks and questions about whether that will still be there in four years, and (valid) questions about lifecycle support.
Read his commentary and ponder - do you want to be a member of a group that won't even consider listening to members of opposing groups? That way lies extinction....
I love vegetarians - some of my favorite foods are vegetarians.
we should totally be open to listening to alternative points of view, but is an open source conference really the proper venue for it?
As others have pointed out, it's probably the only place that open source and MS will get compared in a fair and factual manner, or at least as fair and factual as open source zealotry will allow. I doubt open source gets brought up as anything but Satanic Evilness to be Feared and Fought at MS-sponsored events.
But the point I'd like to make is that open source zealots should not oppose MS participation in open source events for one very important reason: in the disputes over the merits of Windows and open source OS like Linux, the open source advocates have the better argument. In any propaganda conflict, those who have the better argument should take every opportunity to contrast their arguments with the opposition's arguments, even if it's on their own dime.
An analogous situation can be found in the drug policy reform movement. When you visit a web site sponsored by a reform group, such as the Media Awareness Project, you'll find many links to drug war propaganda, and to the opinions of those who support the continuation of the war. But if you go to sites that support the government position, such as the Antidrug you'll find no links to the opposition. This is a reflection of the relative strengths of the arguments on both sides. Drug policy reformers want their opponents to be freely heard, because their arguments are so profoundly flawed that they help the reformers, rather than hurting.
I personally believe the same to be true of the MS vs. open source debate.
Nothing about Open Source definition excludes Microsoft.
But everything about Microsoft excludes Microsoft.
If I were using just Open Source, I wouldn't particularly care which venues were open to Microsoft, but I do use mostly Microsoft and there is a vast difference between the promise and the reality. If I go to any Open Source whatever I do not want to be subjected to more of Microsoft's noise. I want to be able to pick up the faint glimmer of hope for a better world.
But everything about Microsoft excludes Microsoft.
That was so well said. Microsoft's continuous lying and FUD, and their pathetic Shared Source, which is nothing but an attempt to fool people into thinking that they're getting on board, come immediately to mind.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Be that as it may, my point was related to the latter part of the statement - my bad for not providing the appropriate emphasis thusly:
we have the resources and ability to help you 10 years from now when you're having trouble.
You already alluded to my real point when you said:
just as much as they do today, which is another argument entirely
The only "trouble" that Microsoft seems to be genuinely concerned about helping people with is excess weight in the money pocket.
Sigs are bad for your health.
If (EverythingMS) == BAD then AdvocateCredibility == FALSE.
Be objective. Linux's merits will stand out. Just don't sound like a zealot.
Hm, Copernicus found himself in a similar dilemma. Only it wasn't zealotry he was charged with, it was heresy.
When your only choices are "downplay the truth" or "sound like a zealot", it's tough to manage. The truth does not always lie between the extremes of popular opinion. Only the middle lies there.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
And, from what I have seen, MS really does listen. They were going to force expiration of Windows NT certifications, and so many people were against it, that MS will not retire the cert. There was also the proposed changes to their licensing model.
Also, MS is very good at listening for ways to improve their product. Office has been getting steadily better since O95 (the first version I used), the improvements they have made to their OS's have been phenominal. the improvements to other products, like SMS, continue to make them steadily better than their previous versions.
So no, I cannot agree that MS squelches its critics.
Second, the thing that I really like about being a linux advocate is that I can be a zealot if I want to, or I can be reasonable if I don't want to be This is a really bad statement. Its like saying 'the thing I like about living in America is I have the right to say anything, no matter if its true, false, or stupid'. I dont see blind, rabid promotion of anything to be positive. Sure, I dont think people should be silenced, but I view lies and stupidity to be the downside of freedom of speach, not something to celebrate. So should Microsoft, but they aren't (and have never been) free to do so This isnt true either. Many people within MS are Linux advocates, and even contributors. However, MS does have a valid point in banning Linux use within the company- if any GPL'd code is used in an MS product, then, legally, MS cannot charge for that product, and has to make the source available. When you are a for-profit business, giving away your products is hardly conducive to STAYING in business. Take Mandrake for example. Free beer does not a successful tavern make.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
Frovingslosh has it right, in my opinion. Microsoft is using our very openness against us to gain a forum that they would NEVER give us. I think the correct thing to do is to respectfully decline Microsoft's offer to speak at the show.
Having said that, it's pretty obvious that Microsoft is going to be there. This is Microsoft. Even the leaders of an OS conference cannot turn Microsoft away. So here is what I propose: use this time to hear how the enemy speaks. You know they're going to pitch their products, and you know that in hostile territory like this, they're going to bring out their best. So listen to them. If they say Open Source is undermines the stability of the companies that keep the economy going, then know that they've whispered that into the ears of your CTO and CEO. If they say Open Source is more error-prone or created whimsically or haphazardly, understand that a lot of technical people have bought their argument hook, line, and sinker. Find out what MS says. And then, use it to make your own arguments more powerful and persuasive. Address the fears that MS creates. Use their words against them.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &