Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Flirts with Open Source
Vin Daryl writes "ZDNet reports on Microsoft's love-hate relationship with open-source software." From the article: "The interoperability lab focuses on getting products from open-source ISVs such as JBoss, to work on the Microsoft platform, he said. 'For example, we often collaborate with JBoss, but in certain areas we might compete with them. It's competition and cooperation,' Hilf explained. 'Over time, as you see the open-source marketplace maturing and becoming more commercial, I think you'll see more of that kind of dynamics. It's not something that's unique to Microsoft,' he said, adding that IBM and Oracle also compete, and at the same time, cooperate with open-source vendors. "
"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer" I think that is the way it goes.
This sounds more like a company who's trying to show everyone they aren't anti open source, because they have open source buddies... seems likes people who say they aren't racist just because they have black friends. (see http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/)
Comment about open source maturing gives me heartburn.
Same feeling I get about pundits all over the web yammering about second generation Open Source, whatever that means. Don't know about anybody else but "second generation Open Source" reminds me more of shareware in the '90s than Open Source of recent memory.
I guess this is the future. Software vendors float out little open source bundles of their software but hold the best functionality back for their commerical products. I'm not sure if that fosters innovation or not, but something doesn't smell right to me. I guess people just got tired of writing software and not getting paid so they hitched their wagons to software companies, and I can understand that.
Then again, maybe this is the way it always was and I'm just starting to take notice. But where commercial interests have started entagling themselves with open source, it should be interesting to see what happens in those projects. When every featureset or new software project needs to be tied to the bottom line, these private interests will start to strangle innovation, and the whole open source community will suffer for it.
Microsoft wins if JBoss is hosted on a Windows Server and the database backend is SQL Server 2005. They couldn't care less if you're running Java, so long as it's on their server platforms. Would they prefer you to go all the way with .NET? Sure, but they aren't going to piss away customers willing to buy expensive server software just because they prefer different development tools. Same thing with Oracle. Who cares if the box is Linux, the application servers open source as long as the database is Oracle? They aren't going to tell customers, "buy all our products or we're going to go home and pout."
In the many Slashdot discussions on China and the internet, there's always this great debate between folks that see the internet as a philosophical movement to free the world from government oppression versus others who see it as a technology that, as it matures, needs to conform to the laws of the countries it operates in.
I see a very similar divide within open source. The original open source movement started as a free software/anti-software patent movement supported by an alturistic (and idealistic) global community united by their belief that software should be free and shared. As the open source movement has matured (or devolved), the big boys have stepped in (IBM/Oracle/SUN/HP) and taken over much of the 'real' Linux movement (i.e. enterprise-class), open source is MUCH more about enabling these companies to compete against Microsoft.
These vendors could really care less about the ideals of the open source and shared development except to the extent it destroys its competitors. In a recent talk I attended by IBM, they argued that they embraced open source specifically because it gave them a strong competative advantage and crushed the opposition. In effect, IBM develops high-end software, makes tons of money for 3-4 years, then releases it into open source as soon as their profit margins starts to slide because of new competition. Thus, in effect, they undermine the competition by giving away the software.
Also, open source used to be about open SOURCE. Now 99% of the world sees open source as FREE software and really could care less about the SOURCE part. That's certainly the only part 'real' businesses care about.
So, rather than bashing Microsoft for trying to co-exist with open source, keep in mind that the large companies embracing open source are only doing it for business reasons rather than some philosophical alignment with and belief in the goodness of open source. They could care less about all that crap. And their customers could care less for the most part.