Microsoft Proposes Cooperative Research With OSDL

turnitover writes "According to eWEEK.com, Microsoft has proposed to work with OSDL for a 'facts-based analysis of Linux and Windows.' Could this just be a case of the fox contracting security for the hen house?" Martin Taylor, Microsoft's general manager of platform strategy, declined to comment on the specifics of what was discussed when he met with OSDL's CEO Stuart Cohen, only to say that they met.

Comments

Trust

[gkozlyk]

I don't know if i would trust Micro$oft with any relationship involving Linux. They'll probably mess it up, try buying it to get rid of it, or patent some critical part of it, going by their history with software of course.

Re:That's no moon!

[einhverfr]

Perhaps Microsoft will lure away all of the OSDL developers (aka Mono & the head of Gentoo) with money for starving developers to take the wind out of Linux. Just tractor beam in all of the major talent and learn from the "enemy."

They had better have really deep packets to try take the wind out of Linux. They have deep pockets, but not deep enough, I'm afraid. Besides I think that their stock price would suffer if they spent enough of their money on this to make a difference.

More likely it is just one more aspect of Microsoft struggling to understand Linux. My suggestion is say "Sorry, Windows is beyond our focus. But if there are other areas you would like to work with us on, such as maybe improving the GCC on Windows, we would love to have your cooperation."

Re:Don't be so sure

[Master of Transhuman]

Show me one quote where Linus thinks Microsoft are in any way "good guys" - however you or he defines "good guys."

Yes, Linus is not a "free as in beer software" fanatic. However, he DOES believe in open source and in Linux as a process and a product, as well as a technology challenge. The latter may be what floats his boat, but he's not exactly an SCO supporter, either. And he's not stupid.

Stallman may be a socialist or semi-socialist or pseudo-socialist or whatever, but even the GPL allows people to sell open source software as long as the source is included.

Bill Gates and Microsoft have NEVER been about free as in freedom OR free as in beer, ever. Go back and read his "You Hobbyists Steal Your Software" rant and his poker days at Harvard.

Why should anybody in OSS concern themselves about "cooperation" (in other than a technical interoperability sense) with Microsoft?

You misunderstand the problem

[einhverfr]

48 Billion in hand (I think that's what's left in cash and after the last dividend, not counting other financial assets). Say they spend 100 grand on hiring each developer, they would only be able to buy less than half a million developers. How many developers are there in the core Linux team?

You misunderstand the problem.

Microsoft can hire all sorts of Linux Kernel Programmers. Many of the top tier programmers will not be easily hired, so you will have to focus on the second tier (which is, I think, where a lot of the actual programming is done). Many of these are hired by other companies. Redhat, Novell, Cray, IBM, SGI, and others. These companies often have a fair bit invested in Linux and can't just get by on fewer developers, so they will fill in the ranks. There will be some loss there but not enough to justify the money that Microsoft will be spending.

Now, lets say that Microsoft hires 300 second tier Linux developers at 100k each plus benefits (lets say 130k to be conservative). This means that it is costing them nearly 10M dollars just to retain these people for a year.

So now IBM, et. al. have hired and ramped up 300 more developers. People see that Linux Kernel Development has career potential and more people are interested. Wash, rinse, repeat and voila it is now more expensive the next year.

This is money which *actively* reduces Microsoft's profits. Yet, it doesn't accomplish a whole lot. Indeed it could actually hurt Windows marketshare as bright programmers see all the indications that Linux development is where it is at.....

So you have two problems:

1) Microsoft creating a larger job market for its competition and

2) Microsoft paying lots of money for very temporary delays.

Microsoft could hurt Borland by hiring all their C compiler developers. However, Linux is far different. There are many magnitudes more kernel developers out there on Linux.

Ultimately Microsoft would find themselves overwhelmed by sheer numbers much like the US-led forces were overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of Chinese crossing the Korean border when the Korean war really got going.

Re:That's no moon!

[michaeldot]

Anyway, my thoughts on such news is that MS now acknowledges that Linux is a genuine market player that they need to play nice with, much more so than they do with Apple for example.

Hmm.

<sarcasm>
So I guess that's why they brought out MS Office for Linux instead of MS Office for Mac.
</sarcasm>

Did know that a low-end Mac sold with a boxed copy of Office often makes more money for Microsoft than it does Apple? (Gross margins on software are 80%+ compared to gross margins of 20% on hardware.) Yeah, Microsoft must really hate Apple.

Apple is no threat to Microsoft. If Mac doubled it's marketshare, Microsoft's revenue from it would increase.

Linux, if it can get its desktop act together, is.