Slashdot Mirror
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.
The Open Developers Score Ladies?
The Optional Donuts Save Lunches?
The Original Dolphin Saved Lassie?
I'm confused.
Would microsoft support OSDL the same way they supported java?
Microsoft might be genuinely interested in learning from GNU/Linux since they obviously need all the help they can get. I was reading that Longhorn will finally have GNU/Unix-like user permissions. Besides, it makes sense from a strategic point. What's the Sun Tzu saying? "Keep your friends close, your enemies closer." 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."
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.
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.
;D
Martin "Scarface" Taylor, running his finger along the top of the monitor: "You guys got a real nice operating system, here. It'd be a real shame if something happened to it..."
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
If it's Linux, were perfectly safe. Little thing called the GPL.
But you can bet your last cent that Microsoft wants to `cooperate' under a BSD license.
The unofficial
"It's a trap!" - Admiral Ackbar
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Is MS necessarily the fox? It seems to me that open source projects target MS products, not the other way around. Consider Firefox. Take a look at Firefox's lineage and you'll find Netscape Navigator, once upon a time a commercial product. To keep up with IE, NN became free and open source in 1998. The descendants of NN have been playing market share catch-up ever since, even taking out large ads in major newspapers.
I think in this case it's the hen opening a dialog with the fox.
"approaching the OSDL (Open Source Development Labs) to work with it on a joint, independent research project "
How can this be 'joint' and 'independent' at the same time? Specially when MS is one of the parties?
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
In the meantime, you can look back at the last 25 years of computer history and view the landscape full of the broken, rotting carcasses of everyone, from PDA manufacturers to OS/2, who ever "collaborated" with Microsoft and thought it would result in something other than betrayal followed by their complete and utter destruction.
Hey, Microsoft wants to "collaborate" with open source? Maybe they could never mind the PR movements and "research", and just fucking document their formats and protocols so that open source software isn't left a second-class, reverse-engineered citizen in the world full of computers Microsoft owns.
This is awful!
. . . somehow. At all.
Oh, I'll find a way.
xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
1) They seek to make their own "Get the Facts" campaign appear more legitimate by having OSDL create a similar one. Right now, a lot of people assume that Microsoft isn't telling the whole truth in their advertising, but if Red Hat or some other Linux company started doing the same, then some people might start believing it. By not fighting back, they actually make Microsoft seem almost desperate.
2) They want OSDL to do market research for them from their "customer base" so Microsoft can take that research to improve Windows in these areas. If Microsoft can absorb the features that people value most about Linux into Windows, the theory goes that they can then crush Linux.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Otto von Bismarck once said, "Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied." Well, now Microsoft has officially denied that it hates Linux. I guess it's time to start believing, then.
This has nothing to do with religion.
This has everything to do with empirical evidence of MS actions in regards to "cooperating" with other organizations and efforts.
Funny how any techie could rattle off at least a few well known and high profile cases of MS shafting it's "development partners". And yet you sit here and rattle off some crap about religious zealots and "not being so sure".
Well... that about sums it up don't it.
Obviously you're too much an idiot to bother trying to explain anything to , or too much an asshole to bother with.
but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt either way.
- lest I be too quick to judge.
So here's a bone:
Name 1 competing software manufacturer that MS has dealt with on a cooperative basis that MS hasn't stolen from, lied to, killed out right or simply aquired.
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?
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
No only is Microsoft for this, but it's own architect of the "Get the Facts" campaign, Martin Taylor.
There must be strings attached.
Whatever the trap, a) we should avoid the bait or b)figure out what they are up to (I'm not smart enough to see it) because whatever the case - Microsoft isn't about to fund a study that shows it bad in security.
And what's the need to analyze Microsoft security?
First: The computers in research studies can be unrealisticly hardened on both sides - Windows more so because the default installation isn't tested most of the time - just a dream system hardened by EXPERTS. How many Windows users turn off the default services they don't need along with turning off ActiveX.
Second: How is this a learning experience? Microsoft already knows what it does wrong. But it can't take the cure because they think it's too painful - rip out ActiveX, make Internet Explorer and Explorer more removable and more modular so it's not soldered to the system, same with Outlook, etcetera.
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.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP