Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Wants Sit-Down With OSS Advocates
bonch writes "Microsoft is reaching out to the OSS community and wanting a sit-down to discuss how to better to interoperate with them. At a conference sponsored by the Association for Competitive Technology (ACT) in Cambridge, Md., Microsoft's Brad Smith extended an olive branch to its competitors, including the OSS community. 'We're going to have to figure out how to build some bridges between the various parts of our industry,' he said. Eric Raymond responds, saying the first steps Microsoft could do are to open their file formats and support open standards."
didn't he have strategy where he got everybody into one room, then barred the doors and... :)
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
They just want to get all the OSS leaders together in one room, then.....
(oh wait, that was Dr. Who this week. Never mind....)
In a related headline,
Lucy promises to hold football with finger, Charlie Brown to kick.
ITS A TRAP!
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
--sig fault--
What is this? Could this be serious? They did recently acknowledge Linux as an operating system, instead of a cancer (they included support for it in VirtualPC). A very fine move on their part, but perhaps they are onto the final stage (Denial, Bargaining, Anger, Sadness, finally Acceptance?) Though they are not dying, perhaps they see an opportunity to "Accept" the fact that Open Source Software has been around and will be around much longer than anything else.
We must be wary though - could this be a wolf in sheep's clothing? Could this be a false branch? Might they trap the OSS developers at the meeting-place and hold them ransom?!
Who knows...
AccountKiller
And, for my more serious post.... Microsoft has "reached out" before. Seemingly not many remember their big PR campaign when they first released NT circa 1992. One of the big claims, one of the big selling points of their "new technology" (not what NT stands for, btw) was NT's POSIX compliance.... Microsoft purportedly was then about to "join" the open architecture community. They even convinced me to go work for them. But, it turned out they didn't do complete POSIX (only implemented the API, not the User Utilities), and only did the POSIX at all to get government contracts (I know this, I was at an internal presentation where "Margaret" prefaced the presentation with the comments, "We are only doing POSIX as a checkbox, so we can get government contracts..." (I am not making this up.))
Microsoft "working with it's competitors" - that just isn't realistic, it would be kinda like the Goatse man getting a job as a children's TV presenter.
"'We're going to have to figure out how to build some bridges between the various parts of our industry,' he said. Eric Raymond"
Microsoft doesn't have a problem with building bridges... As long as they're toll bridges...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
How about following the RFC's to start. Once M$ adhears to the specs in RFC's devolpers will not longer have to alter RFC compliant code to be M$ compliant.
You only live once, so you might as well have fun before you die.
What a load of baloney!
Microsoft wants to interoperate? Go ahead! Just quit *not* interoperating.
Microsoft wants to reach out to the Open Source community? Uh, they really don't get it, do they. There aren't any leaders to reach out to! There are leaders, but it's not a labor union or a PTA.
We'll judge you by your actions, not by what you say to our leaders.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
The European Union (EU) is after Microsoft in a big way. The EU wants them to enable operability with other systems. The timing is such that these may be interrelated.
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
Well, I RTFA, and this is one of the most misleading titles I've seen in a long time. Microsoft explicitly states that they think their arsenal of software patents is a fine thing and they aren't willing to give up the right to sue. And if they aren't willing to give that up, what is there to discuss? In addition, there isn't anything that requires discussion. If Microsoft was really interested in wokring with the FOSS community, I'm sure there is somebody in their army of lawyers that could figure out how to write a royalty free non-discriminatory patent license that was compatible with the GPL. There is no need to discuss this with anybody, they can 'just do it'. The fact that they chose instead to have one of their lawyers give a content free, buzzword compliant speech tells us all we need to know about Microsoft's olive branch; the only thing they are interested in using it for is to poke people in the eye with it so they don't notice the sledgehammer they are holding in the other hand.
wasn't that goldfinger?
Why would any company ask its competition how they could get along better, if the real motivation wasn't to be more competitive? Am I missing something?
-- Fratz, human
Microsft has been characterized by their actions over the years as predatory... even when it hurt the bottom line. They would target and squash a company just because they could... because they relished a cutthroat style of competition to get motivated.
If I could get an ear within MS I'd try to get them to admit to themselves that the Internet made them more money and the Internet was entirely structured from Open Standards... ethernet, TCP/IP, sockets, HTML over HTTP and on and on... They profitted enormously from NOT fighting these standards... no dial-up MSN only.
The reason for this is the Rising Tide effect.
More investment is poured into a market and most companies benefit in some ratio to their marketshare... there's some shifting but the big winners accelerate adoption and don't fight the new standards that are causing the explosive growth.
Microsoft saw the benefits and only tried minor hacks to the standards (DHTML for example).
When microsoft realizes that having your only significant competitor cost almost nothing they should have the next big Eureka moment. The way to destroy the Sun, HP, and IBM Unix businesses is to accelerate the enterprise adoption of Linux.
Oracle got it... if they spend less on Sun, HP and IBM hardware they have more budget for our products... duh. IT budgets are finite... growth comes from getting more of the budget.
Sun, HP and IBM could be effectively driven out of the Enterprise software business. Enterprise deployments of big applications goes crazy based upon new cost models and Microsoft's boat rises on that new high tide.
The logical extension is commercial Linux versions of their higher margin products (MS SQL, Visual Studio) and even more growth as a company when
the only other significant alternative is an OSS project with little revenue to help it compete for Enterprise requirements.
That's what I might tell this guy to explain to Bill gates and Bill of course would sob gently...
"You mean we've already won? There's no one left to kill? Just mine the veins we already own?."
Well... there is Oracle still.
Bill will likely develop an interest in politics where dirty tricks still mean something.
McD
Sure, what could be wrong with that?
Name a good software company that has had a serious relationship with Microsoft as a competitor and has come off better over a 5-year period as a result of trying to cooperate with them (OK, IBM lasted a bit longer, but most are dead).
IBM has demonstrated any number of ways of showing some level of cooperation with the open or free software communities. Apple, too, has earned some good karma, basing their OS and browser on open code and architecture, even if they keep a lot proprietary. Sun has been involved as well, and it hasn't kept them from keeping other things private. So why can't Microsoft think of something like most other major companies have, without calling a conference of competitors that sounds too much like looking for a target to attack, much like SCO's supposed invitation to IBM and the open source community to sit down and work things out?
Stop being so evil. Microsoft has enough money in the bank to be able to afford business ethics and earn trust.
Here is a first-hand account of Microsoft's earlier effort in London, UK. Look for the great quote from Debian's Philip Hands at the end of the article.
h e_facts/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/28/ms_mugs_t
It goes a little like this...
Brad Smith: The king desires peace.
Eric Raymond: Longshanks.. er.. Gates desires peace?
Brad Smith: He declares it to me, I swear it. He proposes that you withdraw your attack. In return he grants you file formats, patents, and this chest of gold which I am to pay to you personally.
Eric Raymond: File formats and patents. Gold. That I should become Judas?
Brad Smith: Peace is made in such ways.
Eric Raymond: Slaves are made in such ways. The last time Gates spoke of peace I was a boy. And many open-source nobles, who would not be slaves, were lured by him under a flag of truce to a barn, where he embraced and extended and extinguished them. I was very young, but I remember this Gates notion of peace.
--| Richard Stallman on How to Deal with Microsoft |-----
The following is Mirrored from: http://linuxtoday.com/stories/4999.html
Richard Stallman proposes three remedies that would help enable free
software operating systems such as GNU/Linux compete technically while
respecting users' freedom. These three remedies directly address the three
biggest obstacles to development of free operating systems, and to giving
them the capability of running programs written for Windows. They also
directly address the methods Microsoft has said (in the "Halloween
documents") it will use to obstruct free software. It would be most
effective to use all three of these remedies together.
1. Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all interfaces
between software components, all communications protocols, and all file
formats. This would block one of Microsoft's favourite tactics: secret and
incompatible interfaces.
To make this requirement really stick, Microsoft should not be allowed to
use a nondisclosure agreement with some other organization to excuse
implementing a secret interface. The rule must be: if they cannot publish
the interface, they cannot release an implementation of it.
It would, however, be acceptable to permit Microsoft to begin
implementation of an interface before the publication of the interface
specifications, provided that they release the specifications
simultaneously with the implementation.
Enforcement of this requirement would not be difficult. If other software
developers complain that the published documentation fails to describe
some aspect of the interface, or how to do a certain job, the court would
direct Microsoft to answer questions about it. Any questions about
interfaces (as distinguished from implementation techniques) would have to
be answered.
Similar terms were included in an agreement between IBM and the European
Community in 1984, settling another antitrust dispute. See
http://www.essential.org/antitrust/ibm/ibm1984ec.h tml.
2. Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the field of
software. (If they happen to own patents that apply to other fields, those
other fields could be included in this requirement, or they could be
exempt.) This would block the other tactic Microsoft mentioned in the
Halloween documents: using patents to block development of free software.
We should give Microsoft the option of using either self-defense or mutual
defense. Self defense means offering to cross-license all patents at no
charge with anyone who wishes to do so. Mutual defense means licensing all
patents to a pool which anyone can join -- even people who have no patents
of their own. The pool would license all members' patents to all members.
It is crucial to address the issue of patents, because it does no good to
have Microsoft publish an interface, if they have managed to work some
patented wrinkle into it (or into the functionality it gives access to),
such that the rest of us are not allowed to implement it.
3. Require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working with Microsoft
software, unless the hardware's complete specifications have been
published, so that any programmer can implement software to support the
same hardware.
Secret hardware specifications are not in general Microsoft's doing, but
they are a significant obstacle for the development of the free operating
systems that can provide competition for Windows. To remove this obstacle
would be a great help. If a settlement is negotiated with Microsoft,
including this sort of provision in it is not impossible -- it would be a
matter of negotiation.
This April, Microsoft's Ballmer announced a possible plan to release
source code for some part of