Slashdot Mirror
What if Microsoft went Open Source?
An anonymous reader writes "This article on newsforge takes a speculative look at what would have to happen if Microsoft decided to jump on the Open Source bandwagon (using Microsoft Project as the source of speculation). Amusing to think about, unlikely to happen."
You never know, it might just eventually improve their products. Look at Netscape/Mozilla!
There is a reason why Microsoft doesn't go open source that a lot of people don't realize, or at least they don't think about it. Sure Microsoft made the code for the NT Kernel, Office, VS.NET, etc. So they can legally release all that code. But there are a lot of things within Windows and Office that Microsoft can't legally release the code for. Like the defragger that is made by some German company. A lot of device drivers written by hardware people also. Windows now technically also includes Sun Java, which they can't release the source for.
So while MS could open lots of source, there would be quite a few holes in it, and all the geeks who bothered to look would be wondering what was up with the swiss cheese.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
What would happen if M$ went Open Source?
I'm pretty sure these would form in this place.
If you'll excuse me for asking... what's the joke here? I have noticed what seems to be a dramatic decrease in the number of comments in most stories - are they invisible to me (due to the new subscription stuff)? Has everyone simply gone somewhere else? Obviously, everyone is still here (c.f. the Iraq stories).
What's tha dilly?
Brandon
If Microsoft DID actually "get it" and go opensource, dropping their strategy and opening up code and changed their development ideas...
would the OSS/FS community be able to handle that ?
and would anyone help them out ?
(assuming that, let's say it's released under GPL or BSD style licenses)
people are getting bored of this site, that's why. it's the same thing every time. the comments follow the same pattern. the karma whores remain the karma whores, and the mods act like typical mods. slashdot is becoming obsolete. people get tired of having to please the majority in order to be heard (i.e. modding down below threshold).
don't you get sick of it?
Forget going OSS with some minor application. Apple has allready proven you can go half OSS with an OS and not run into big problems. Microsoft, no matter what else you say about them employs some smart programmers. They could release a decent linux distribution of their own rewriting Microsoft Windows as a closed source window manager that you have the option to run within your X enviroment. Support could be such that the MS Window manager would be garenteed to interoperate with their setup but was a standard Window Manager so could optinally be run on top of any *nix system on the market. This would achieved the desired greater market penetration, as well al allow MS to dip their collective little toe into the OSS market while retaining total control over that intellectial property they prize above all else. It would also allow them to focus on the GUI and high level layers of computing systems rather than worrying about the underlying architecture, which they really have no stake in other than as investments in companies like Intel and AMD. Why bother continuing to write, maintain and update a kernel when you can retain the same market power while just writing a desktop manager/window manager combination product?
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Microsoft Linux Distribution
A year ago people would have thought "M$" bought "Linux". But it still is a doable way and wouldn't be that late for them to do it.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Wheres the incentive to buy the boxed product? MS Office isn't linux. Most people buy linux in a box instead of downloading it because, for first time users anyway, it is a lot easier to install and get started. There is also a lot of documentation (i.e. on paper) that comes with the boxed retail versions of linux. However, as I said before, Office isn't linux. It almost as easy to install a downloaded copy as it is to install the boxed copy. There won't be as much incentive for the end user to go and get the retail version, especially if they are simply casual Office users. Most people will only need to perform simple tasks on Word and Excel, and a simple download and install would allow them to do that without paying money. Of couse you're going to have lots of people who will still pay money, but the casual end user who really doesn't give a damn about whether its open source or not will simply download it.
I'm sure that because of their government contracts that they are bound to silence when it comes to the code, much less making the whole project OS.
If Office is your $496.99 product, what prevents me from just building and selling a non-supported version for $5? Answer: nothing. You would have to bring your price way down and cut development and support costs or lose a ton of money. You might say "but they can afford to lose a ton of money" Yeah, there is a good business plan. If many of you OSS supporters were in the same situation I am sure you would do the same. That "Information wants to be free" shit would end fast.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Only a person to whom you give your binaries to need get the source.
So your customer could, in theory, resell yout product. However, they would probbly not be able to support it. I mean, that is the reason for picking MS in business, isn't it? You *know* MS will be around to support your product.
Additionally, look at Trolltech (produce Qt). they have a GPL product (Qt), but it's GPL. If you include the code in your product (even just by dynamic linking), your product MUST be GPL'd too. Most businesses don't want to do that, but they have to option of buying a non-GPL version which they can use. They have to pay Trolltech for this, so they make money.
Easy-peasy.
Maybe I want to buy the Open Source software so I can transfer it from old computer to new computer easily. Maybe I want the manual (which, even if available as a .pdf, seems to be so much more handy if I can leave through it). Maybe the download sites are constantly jammed, and it would take less time to drive to Best Buy, purchase a copy, drive back, and install it, then it would take to download the damn thing.
Maybe it's an impulse buy. Maybe it's a present to another geek. Maybe you actually needed someone to tell you this....
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
MS wouldn't open source their products. Instead, they'd do their own GNU/Linux distribution with some key changes. They'd integrate DRM into X along with some other "features" that make it more proprietary. Remember X is closable source (to coin a phrase) so they can indeed compromise one of the most important parts of Linux and make it their own. Remember, they don't want 10 instances of Office running on a single machine with 10 different users on X-terminals. X would clearly be the first thing they "fix". You'll get D3D or whatever they call their 3D API these days. Many stupid people will jump for joy because they can run their D3D games on Linux, meanwhile OpenGL would die off completely, leaving Linux with another proprietary standard that has no alternative. More things would happen, but I'll hold out for a job offer from them before I go on. This was just a very brief hint of a viable attack on their biggest competitor.
In the mean time, I suggest moving ASAP to completely free (as in GPLed freedom) software. Somone please coin a pleasing phrase for GPLed so people can hop on the bandwagon. For starters I'd like to see Mozilla ported to Fresco, along with GNome. Hell, merge GNome and KDE while doing it. If that's too complex, someone should do a GPL version of X, since the maintainers seem to be having issues lately (see recent
You asked, and now have been warned.
Okay, I'm actually going to talk about the article:
In the 3. Someone will fork it. section:
"If the boxed price is low enough, the fork is unlikely to clone the proprietary features."
This is not at all true. Geeks will clone something for the sole reason of that it is not Open Source. Even if their version is identical to the proprietary one. The proprietary version will then be labeled as "evil". Project would fork to GNUProject, nothing would ever get actively contributed to MS Project, and it would likely deviate to the point of incompatibility (of the programs and extensions, not the file formats). Microsoft would essentially be giving their product away free, not becoming involved in the Open Source community and development.
Does anyone have examples pertaining to this line of thinking?
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
Just because the source code is freely available does not mean that anyone can just compile it on all their servers and begin using it. There are many different licences to choose from.
I wouldn't mind if M$ would just allow us working class ghetto hackers and techno-janitor sysadmin to see more of their source in the same way that they let big customers and some universitys look at their source code
The US government uses Windows almost exclusively
I'm calling bullshit. I have done contract work for the New York state health dept and saw everything from HP-UX to Solaris to a bunch of old Macintrash boxes. To say that the gubment use Windows almost exclusively is totally unfounded.
Hell, I just scanned whitehouse.gov and they're running Apache!
scripsit SensitiveMale:
Why do Americans get so hung up on this? I don't get it.
Republic == ``res publica'', Latin for (roughly) the populus (people) is in charge
Democracy == ``dimokratia'', Greek for (roughly) the dimos (people) is in charge
In modern Greek, the word for republic is ``dimokratia'' (as in ``Elliniki Dimokratia'' -- Greek Republic).
You can play semantic games all you want, but the terms have no inherent difference in meaning. If you want to split hairs, you need to provide definitions. FWIW, the difference betwen the Roman and Athenian models (hence, I assume, the hair-splitting) is pretty small. The Romans said the senators were representatives of the people, but they were the heads of the most powerful families. The Greeks said that all citizens participated directly, but restricted citizenship to the heads of the most powerful families. 6 == half dozen.
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
Microsoft doesn't really depend on the closed code point. The Microsoft is no doubt a big software creator and improver. But what is theirs major asset is the sell & markting and of course the services. They probably will still be majors even with open code:
Their major asset: name & reputation for the big masses and big corporations willing to spend a lot of money to be free from the concern of software quality nad support.
They really are the biggest on Marketting new ideas and product and selling them really fast even when they are not yet ready. ( See amazon.com when they tried to copy this with seagway - and this toy is even cheaper than most stuff that MS sell).
------I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either.------
Here's a thought. Suppose MS decided to port the Win32 API from NT kernel over to BSD?
.Net for FreeBSD. They could do an Apple, and sell a proprietary GUI on a rock-solid OS core. Away go the complaints about security and reliability. Hell, they could make it more secure out-of-the-box than some Linux distros.
:-)
And maybe replace some of the above-the-kernel bits too: replace IIS with Apache, etc. ISTR reading somewhere that Windows' TCP/IP stack is based in large part on BSD code already. Ballmer is on record saying that Apache is superior to IIS, and Apache's market share speaks for itself.
MS already support
They could then claim to be an "Open Source vendor", whatever that means. They'd become the largest *nix vendor (by license volume) overnight. If they passed the right compliance tests, they could even call it Unix, as IBM has done with OS/390 (I know, no-one takes that very seriously outside of IBM, but it's technically true.)
They'd need an equivalent of MS WoW to run existing Win32 software: that might explain their recent purchase of Connectix. Since Connectix already has a native version for the BSD-based MacOS X, porting would be pretty straightforward. Maybe they've tried this already on the quiet before agreeing to buy.
They could also quit banging their faces into the ground, trying to migrate Hotmail from BSD to WinXP.
I have never understood the connection between "open source" and "free" (as in beer). What if all Microsoft products DID come with source code? There would still be no reason for pirates to distribute the source code, then have each user compile it separately. No, they'd just distribute the binaries, just like how they already do.
I can't see why people equate selling source code with allowing unrestricted distribution. Binaries are no harder to distribute than source code.
Opening up commercial source code may also result in trade secrets being compromised. Even if a company spends months or years developing, coding, and testing a revolutionary feature, it will all be for naught when a competitor comes along and duplicates it all in one fell swoop.
And, yes, companies such as Microsoft would lose power and control if they released source to applications such as Word. If Word's source became available today, there is no doubt that Microsoft would lose an enormous amount of clout and revenue. It's a lose-lose situation for them. It may be temporary good news for the open source community if such a thing happens, but be rest assured, the software industry would take a huge financial hit if it did so. There would be no temptation for Microsoft to make DOC formats, for Adobe to make PDF's and PSD's, or Macromedia to make SVF's.
I just do not see how simply releasing the code to commercial products will benefit the big companies out there, regardless if there are strict licenses on the source itself.
Details at www.opportunityservices.com.
(What do I mean Microsoft-approved?
Not long ago my business plan for an LLCS provider was circulated internally at Microsoft. Soon after, I received the following email from Randy Hinrichs, Manager of Microsoft Research's Learning Sciences and Technology Group:
"Frank, you are a good man. Have you thought about joining this team? Your only alternative, of course, is venture capital. But their usual models require getting rid of the 'originator' within the first eighteen months. With Netscape it took a little longer, but you get the idea.")
Portentously, Microsoft appears to be headed in the LLCS direction. Consider, for example, their updated mission statement: to enable people and businesses throughout the world to realize their full potential.
Or this remark by Jeff Raikes, Microsoft Group Vice-President of Productivity and Business Services:
"I want to grow the information worker business...For the growth we can achieve this decade, about one-third will be from continuing to grow and enhance Office, while two-thirds will come from creating new categories of application value and services to support information work."
Or the TV commercials with the line drawing overlaying the video, and the off-screen voice talking about Microsoft's passion for helping people realize their full potential.
So what will happen re: open source and LLCS?
I suspect MS will end up going the route of the providers of retail financial services. Namely, their differentiator will be the utility of their technology-enabled services, not the enabling technology. Return on money wins in financial services. Return on productivity time will win in LLCS. If open source underlies, a la Hotmail, fine. The LLCS-centered MSFT will be technology-agnostic. (Although not until they have to be. No sense killing off the cash cows prematurely.)
Beyond this, lots more can be said, so I will confine additional remarks to responses to questions or comments.
Enjoy,
Frank Ruscica
Founder :: Have Fun to Get Ready
The Opportunity Services Group
www.opportunityservices.com