Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Keeps Eye on Open-Source Prize
Rob writes to tell us that at the recent Open Source Business Conference in San Francisco Microsoft's director of platform technology strategy, Bill Hilf, outlined why Microsoft is staying involved with open source. From the article: "Challenges of working [coopetively] in the open-source space include the balance between competing and cooperating with a rival, he said. Perception also is a 'big' challenge for the software giant. 'In many regards, the Microsoft open-source story lends itself to a great metaphor of David and Goliath,' he said. 'That is a challenge over perception.'"
Umm... I dont thin the EU wanted the source at all, they wanted proper specs and documentation for the SMB protocol (?). MS was trying to avoid giving anyone anything useful by licensing the Windows source for lots of cash and a very restrictive lisence that would not actually let FOSS use any knowledge gained from the source. On top of that, there is still no good specs/docs for SMB, which was what was asked for in the beginning.
Ever wonder why they have a problem with their public perception?
"On the desktop, we have a strategic win today (monopoly). We must keep the desktop." - Presentation, Microsoft Executive Staff Retreat, May 10, 1990
"We are engaged in a FUD campaign to let the press know about some of the bugs. We'll provide info a few bugs at a time to stretch it out." - Brad Silverberg, July 22, 1991
"Objectives: FUD DR DOS with every editorial contact made." - MS-DOS 6 PR Plan, November 1992
"look what znix is doing! cut those fuckers off." - Brad Silverberg, May 19, 1992
"Five minutes after any agreement is signed with Microsoft, they'll be thinking of how to violate the agreement. They're predators. They crush their competition. They crush new ideas. They stifle innovation. That's what they do." - Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, Quoted by Matthew Szulik at a U.S. Senate Hearing, Dec 12, 2001
Could be their corporate conduct.
Developers: We can use your help.
Just using the conference to confuse, confound and inject a little fud ..
..
... What would actually happen if we were in that environment?"
..
..)
"I personally don't believe tech support calls for a commodity product is sustainable,"
No one ever made money out of Open Source
"In many regards, the Microsoft open-source story lends itself to a great metaphor of David and Goliath," "That is a challenge over perception"
One way of meeting the challenge is to hire on the best out of Open Source taking them out of the Gene pool.
"Microsoft has benefited from OSS, has participated in OSS projects, and feels that OSS will continue to have an important role in the ecosystem"
Pronouncments like this also give the impression that MS is in some way directing the development of the Open Source model. That and the use of the word 'open' at every opportunity. It's called stealing mindshare.
"We have an impact from what people call the ripple effect
We hope to gain some control over that environment by engaging with it. He also had this to say previously
When we think about criteria around interoperability, we will have a great foundation in Longhorn to help exercise the criteria around that."
Open Source does not equal Open Standards.
But MS Open Standards does not actually mean the protocols and interfaces are in the public domain does it. A royalty free license is still tied to Microsoft. But keep on repeating the word 'open'.
"Linux is somewhat inferior to commercial offerings when considered as a general-purpose desktop operating system"
I'm sorry Bill, but you just lost your credibility. (Sent from a SuSE Desktop. No viruses, no blue screens etc
http://fudwatcher.blogspot.com/
davecb5620@gmail.com
it means limited co-operation between competitors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coopetition
Web Design