Slashdot Mirror
A Perspective on Microsoft's Shared Source
Masa writes "ONLamp has an insightful article by Stephen R. Walli about Microsoft Shared Source Initiative and some thoughts, what it would really mean if Microsoft would open-source their operating system.
The article gives a nice perspective on the Shared Source Initiative and what it is meant to be. It also shows that even if it might look that Microsoft doesn't understand the value of open source, there actually are some projects under the OSI-approved licenses, for example the WiX Toolset, which is a good example of a successful open source project by Microsoft."
Perspectives on the Shared Source Initiative
by Stephen R. Walli
03/24/2005
Nat Torkington and I were discussing Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative not long ago. I left Microsoft in early December and had spent the last three years directly involved in various aspects of Shared Source work. The more we discussed his questions, the more we realized others probably shared the same questions. This article came from that realization.
Microsoft began pushing the idea of "shared source" a few years ago as a way to talk about source code sharing exercises they continue to develop in the face of open source software practices. The idea holds the premise that they will share the source code of their software appropriately with appropriate audiences. Free and open source software was happening all around them. They were certainly thinking about the phenomena all the way back to the original Halloween document in October 1998. After talking to many of their customers, they discovered that many Windows developers did want access to read code and debug against it, but not necessarily modify the code. There was even an early university program for academic access, but this early program was not particularly popular. By Spring 2001, Microsoft needed to have an active position on the open source phenomena, and thus launched the Shared Source Initiative.
I will not discuss the past executive miscommunication and misconception, or the marketing rhetoric, but will look at what Shared Source is and some of the challenges open source presents to a large publicly traded company.
First, recognize that Shared Source isn't one program with one license. Shared Source is an umbrella program for all source sharing programs from Microsoft. Any time Microsoft makes source code available through a program, it brands it as part of the Shared Source Initiative, the marketing machine has the message to deliver, and a new program ends up on the Microsoft Shared Source website. These licenses span the spectrum from very locked down, look-but-don't-touch licenses to licenses approved by the OSI, and everything in between.
Most people imagine Shared Source as an avenue to open sourcing Microsoft's key product assets and are disappointed when they see restrictive licenses and difficult eligibility requirements. It's easy to assume that clearly Microsoft doesn't "get it" with open source, or more deliberately is generating confusion in the marketplace. Microsoft has a breadth of software assets and artifacts. The sharing program eligibility and licensing reflects the value of the software asset to shareholders. On one end of this software spectrum are the narrow-eligibility, high-liability programs around the Windows and Office core revenue generating assets (e.g. Government Security Program, Enterprise Source License Program, etc.) There is tightly controlled access to the code, with restrictions on what people can do with it (often read or debug or limited modification without redistribution rights). The penalties for license breach are high.
These restricted "sharing" programs are tied to the core revenue generating products for the company. (Take a look at the recent quarterly SEC filing. Go to the last page on revenues. Add Client plus Server and Tools and compare that to the total.) The responsibility of the executives to shareholders kicks in pretty quickly. They must take a worst-case, conservative view of the risks (brand damage, legal, revenue stagnation, engineering costs). They must have some form of hard data to support the premise that the more they open the source code base then the more revenue will grow. With these key revenue generating software assets, the company is essentially caught between the shareholders and customer base.
Opening Windows
Related Reading
Understanding Open Source and Free Software Licensing
Understanding Open Source and Free Software Licensing
By Andrew M. St. Laurent
Table of Contents
Index
Sample Chapter
Read Online--Saf
The people at Microsoft aren't stupid. They completely understand open source. But, they also understand the value of a closed proprietary system. Microsoft earns 80% profit margins on Office and Windows. When Red Hat earns that kind of profit, then Microsoft might switch.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
I love how it mentions WiX. WiX has generated enormously good will for microsoft, at least with me.
I don't ever see them releasing all of windows open source, but just releasing small utilities like that open source for others to toy with is a HUGE step forward. Pretend that microsoft hadn't released WiX, and it stayed as time called it, insignificant. No one would have bothered with it except MCP's and others, and they would have used WinInstall LE or whatever.
But because microsoft released it free and OSS, an enormous buzz has been generated and an enormous amount of good will as well.
Why would Windows being open source make PCs less expensive? Open source != free.
It also shows that even if it might look that Microsoft doesn't understand the value of open source,
When you say "value", you mean "potential massive loss of revenue", right? Microsoft are there to make a profit. Expecting them to adopt open source is like expecting Ayn Rand to rise from the grave clutching a copy of Das Kapital.
Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters only to them
Why is this so important? The PII was release in 1997 I believe. At the rate that hardware speeds are changing, why is it necessary to be able to install on hardware that is 8+ years old? Fry's had an ad in my local paper this past weekend for a compete system with a 2 GHz Celeron, 128 MB RAM, and a 40 GB hd for $179. At those prices, it doesn't make sense for Microsoft to spend millions of dollars on making XP capable of running on ancient hardware (actually, even the specs I mentioned are somewhat ancient). I have two machines, and one of them has a 700 MHz slot-A AMD Athlon with 256 MB RAM. It is running Windows XP Professional without a hitch. 64 MB of RAM is your biggest problem, but that is cheap these days as well.
Look at your post.
If Windows became open source we would see £100 knock down on the price of every single PC.
This would then make more people buy PCs, which would help the whole industry except Microsoft.
Microsoft isn't going to do anything that won't help Microsoft. They have an obligation to shareholders to increase profits and market share (dominating as they are). Of course, this is only the case with their current business model.
Now, if they switched to a service contract type business model and open sourced Windows, things might be different. Think of those people that still have Windows 98. What if they had been paying, say, $10-$15 a year since then for support? Microsoft would have made more on them than the customer's initial purchase of Windows (assuming an OEM installed Windows, not Retail).
The customer doesn't have to get support, but lots of people pirate Windows anyway. Might as well release it to everyone and work on *really* good tech support.
Maybe I'm simplifying things too much. I'm sure someone will correct me.
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
A tip... when posting on slashdot, do not watch porn... especially hardware porn...
Catering to a lower common denominator in minimum system specs would make running the operating system far quicker on truly modern systems, but still usable on "obsolete" systems that are only 5-6 years old that would otherwise end up in a landfill.
I think this is a worthy goal.
I'm a big tall mofo.
How would M$ make money at this? Before I get blasted the same kind of money they are making today. Open source is great, but aren't most of the posts anti establishment? Why is it bad to make money? If you don't like don't buy it. You can not ask a man who has been making money the same way for years to suddenly stop.
No this is nothing against Linux, I run Linux for certain applications and I run M$ for other applications. They are just tools. I always use the correct tool for the job.
My sigs offend the max # of people all over the world, regardless of race, religion, color, sex or creed. It's a gift.
Umm, no, actually it is you who seems to be confused.
Here's a summary (from the page linked above):
Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
Cheap for first-world citizens, maybe. U$179 is more than what my mother earns by month. Public schools around here need computer labs badly, but can barely afford a bunch of Pentium IIs. Windows 9x is still the most used OS. 128 RAM is a lot. Apple? What is Apple?
Prescriptive grammar:linguistics
This is a sticking point that people in the Windows camp don't seem to be able to get around.
1. "Linux" is just the kernel. I think that's what this guy was trying to say when he said that the Windows tree is not the Linux tree.
2. A mainstream "GNU/Linux distribution" like Mandrake, RedHat, Fedora, Novell or Debian is more akin to Microsoft Windows Professional + Microsoft Office + Microsoft Plus Pack + Window Blinds + Norton Internet Security + Roxio + [insert any brand of CD/DVD ripping software here] + Development tools + IIS + Microsoft SQL + Abobe Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro + Outlook. At least for a start.
So, if you are going to compare Microsoft Windows to a mainstream GNU/Linux distribution, you quickly see that the GNU/Linux tree is not the Windows tree as there is a whole lot more source code that does into your average distro and a lot of it is very tightly integrated. This is why it is pretty amazing that all the distros are really good about not just updating the basic "OS" code, but all the bundled apps as well. If Microsoft really released a Windows distribution with all the same functionality as a typical GNU/Linux distro, I have a feeling they'd have an even harder time keeping up security wise. It's interesting to note that the supposed independent studies of Linux vs. Windows always harp on how many more security updates that GNU/Linux distros put out than Microsoft does for Windows. They attack that claiming that there are far more security holes in the OS but still equate Windows as offering the same services with fewer patches needed. However, it quickly becomes obvious that since Windows provides such a small amount of functionality when compared to a GNU/Linux distro, they do not offer the same services. It's highly likely that if they did, their patchlist would rival all GNU/Linux distro's patch lists combined. :)
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I put together two Postfix servers at work, one running on a classic Pentium 233mhz and the other on a Pentium II 266mhz. Both are running 2.4.x kernels, both have only 128mb of RAM, and both are handling hundreds of thousands of messages a day. I could probably get away with NT4, but of course, I can't get Postfix to run on them. Windows is hugely bloated and each new version sees this kind of hardware slide off the edge. Linux has given at least five old machines I've worked with new life. A minimal install of something like Slack can be used to make even a classic Pentium a router/firewall.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.