Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Launches Linux Labs Website
mjdroner writes "ZDNet is reporting that Microsoft is launching a website to 'share the activities of its internal Linux laboratories.' Microsoft says its goal is to foster communication with those who use open-source. The article also mentions that Microsoft runs a 300-server Linux installation to test open-source products." From the article: "Customers will be able to submit requests to Microsoft employees. For example, a person could ask how to best test the use of Linux desktops working with Microsoft's directory software.
In addition, Port 25 will do video interviews with Microsoft employees with experience in the open-source or Unix world, Hilf said."
We all know what this is. They've more or less claimed it as a prime mantra behind their business logic. Embrace and "Extend". The Embracing has started, but that Extension is going to be considerably less fun.
Do not confuse "Freedom of Choice" with "Free Will".
The U.S. Airforce once had some of their practice squadrons use Russian tactics and made 'em speak Russian and had 'em briefed with a Soviet flag in the background. This helped the regular pilots practice "against the enemy".
I wonder if this is sort of the same concept going on here.
MS admits that staff inspect and use open source.
How do they ensure that none of that source doesn't leak into MS products?
It would be interesting to discover the facts, we've shown you ours, how about you show us yours?
At least, this makes it seem like they do: "The lab's software is even more diverse, with some 15 versions of UNIX and 50 distributions of Linux--including many lesser-known ones like Asianux, CentOS and NetBSD." http://port25.technet.com/archive/2006/03/31/14.as px
Looks like there are already a few comments there about it though.
Kids these days! You'd think they've never heard "DOS isn't done until Lotus doesn't run".
Having spent a summer at Microsoft, I can verify that Microsoft does, in fact, treat protocols as "innermost workings." They are treated as intellectual property, and when the protocols are good, that means they are valuable business assets. Interoperability is not a metric for many protocols (unless you consider different versions of Windows).
You, know, part of me is wondering whether this part of there attempt to satisfy the EU. After all, the EU demanded that MS play nice with competitors. By 'supporting' Linux in the sense of helping people to integrate other solutions with MS, they might actually be helping their case in the EU. MS could claim that they have documented stuff and that they now are offering support via a website to help people integrate. Afterall, MS needs the EU to calm down before they get in some serious trouble with Vista; the EU has already expressed concerns with Vista to begin with. So while we look at this with suspicion (and I defently do), I would argue that the reasons are a lot less sinsiter as we have presumed and may just be an attempt at propaganda to get the EU off their back. What we have to ask ourselves is what is the economic benefit of offering integration support? And with the EU about to charge them $2.4million a day ($864million a year), I would call that a serious economic benefit. Even if Microsoft loses some sales as a result of doing the support, I doubt that they are going to lose as much as they would by the EU ruling. Also, you'll notice that MS is offering Linux support now in their virtualization product.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
If they only release EXEs, they break the GPL.
you must supply the sources of the OSS you've used.
That is one of the reasons apple built their OS from BSD instead of Linux.
as for what Microsoft's aim is, I have no idea. GPL is a hard nut to crack,
seeing as how any changes they make must be positive, or will never be accepted.
To have a say in the developement of OSS, what you do must be positive for the
project. That's the overwhelming beuaty of the Open Source model.