Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Attempts to Quash OSS Recommendations
An anonymous reader writes "Inside Higher Ed has a story detailing Microsoft's attempt to alter a report created by the Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education. Gerri Elliott, corporate vice president at Microsoft's Worldwide Public Sector division, complained about recommendations in the report to look into 'open source' and 'open content' at higher education institutions across the country. Elliott, who is on the voting committee, waited until the last minute and tried to have the report changed after a public vote. Although she does have a point that 'open source' is a development model, it still has collaboration at its heart. Can Microsoft argue against 'open' and win?"
Before: The commission encourages the creation of incentives to promote the development of open-source and open-content projects at universities and colleges across the United States, enabling the open sharing of educational materials from a variety of institutions, disciplines, and educational perspectives. Such a portal could stimulate innovation, and serve as the leading resource for teaching and learning. New initiatives such as OpenCourseWare, the Open Learning Initiative, the Sakai Project, and the Google Book project hold out the potential of providing universal access both to general knowledge and to higher education. After: The commission encourages the creation of incentives to promote the development of information-technology-based collaborative tools and capabilities at universities and colleges across the United States, enabling access, interaction, and sharing of educational materials from a variety of institutions, disciplines, and educational perspectives. Both commercial development and new collaborative paradigms such as open source, open content, and open learning will be important in building the next generation learning environments for the knowledge economy. Looks like one member was still not happy with the after and wanted "Open source" removed because of the possibility that it would enter them into a copyright debate.
Windows Admin Tools
It all depends on how you define winning. Does it mean having a few senators and congressmen in your pocket? Does it mean having a public debate where it is clear that your position is correct? Does it mean spreading enough FUD that people are confused/fearful enough not to take an "undesirable" action?
My interpretation of a Microsoft win is to perpetuate a perception that OSS is a hippy commune free for all not to be trusted by the government. It fits with the current mode of debate in DC. Adopt an rediculous position that cannot be supported with facts or logic and label anyone that challenges it a extremist fanatical zealot.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
...out flies a chair out of the open Window.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Let's face it... M$ is not fond of open source. Does anyone honestly think they would allow something like that to pass without putting up some kind of objection? You open source people need to pick your battles.
Someone should define what they mean when they say OSS software, if they are meaning in the BSD way, MS has less of a legitimate beef. But if they are thinking GPL way, then I think MS probably has a very legitimate beef. If public money is used to push certain products, outcomes are presented for public use but you are not allowed use it, even though they paid for a portion of it; I think lots of companies probably would have a beef with it.
If it's adopting licenses that basically directly prevent them from doing something, I would very much expect them to have a problem with it and quash the recomendation. If it's truely a free license with no restrictions than I would expect them to have no problems with it.
There. All better.
It's here: http://malfy.org/
Although she does have a point that 'open source' is a development model,
No she doesn't. Not it is not. It is a collection of software licenses.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
We're talking about government and academia, two worlds that produce mountains of papers and reports each year. Does anyone know if these reports from the Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education are ever given any attention by the leaders of colleges and universities?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Gerri Elliott, corporate vice president at Microsoft's Worldwide Public Sector division, sent an e-mail message to fellow commissioners Friday evening saying that she "vigorously" objected to a paragraph in which the panel embraced and encouraged the development of open source software and open content projects in higher education.
Why does anyone take an MS VP 'opinion' over those of people actually working in higher education. Why is anyone even listening to her? What does she have to do with the process at all? What's her background in higher education? Why is MS a part of such a discussion anyway? Why would anyone not think that the only reason MS is involved is to find ways to extort more money out of higher education?
Elliott, though. She thanked Duderdstadt for his suggestion but objected to his proposed inclusion of "open source" ("it's a method of coding software, and one of several available, period") and "open content" (a "term which can mean different things and enter us into some copyright debate"). She suggested language that struck those phrases.
It's worth pointing out that the Internet itself is the result of an OPEN collaboration, not entirely unlike OSS, which is also an open collaboration. The right thing to do would be to let her "never sign" the report, and thank her for her 'input'.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Hasn't Microsoft already won?
Yes. Which is why they have to be watched so they don't use their clout to entrench themselves, because it would quash innovation.
Why does everyone liken these things to a contest or struggle?
Because business is experienced by people who engage in it as a struggle. What you are noting is not only undoubtedly true, it's nothing new. I think it was E.B. White of Elements of Style and Charlotte's Web fame who noted that business jargon tends to picture the businessman like a knight mounted on his charger riding to battle.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
And this is why Bill Gates is represented as a Borg on Slashdot. When mid-level employees such as these are willing to go so out of their way to fight open source it's obvious the guys on top are pressuring them to do so. A lot of people think I'm strange for refusing to purchase any Microsoft product - even mice, Xboxes, cheap PCs running Windows, ect. I just don't want to contribute to a company whose goal is to control all software standards. They want every software technology - media, game development, networking, encoding, advertising, search, internet browsing, office software, ect. ect. to all be under their control. Then they can halt development and move on to their next project. I buy my stuff from companies which are financially committed to their products. When a company relies on a product for their bottom line they tend to care more about it. Employees at Microsoft know they have an infinite amount of money and no matter how half assed their products, people will buy them because the marketing people will sqaush any competition by making them look insecure next to the big bad Microsoft. Look what's happening to Sony right now. They've created what should be every nerd's dream - a new, complex processor, Linux, a killer GPU, free online service, and many many ports, HD so internet text can be read on T.V., and all the tradtional Playstation games - but everyone seems to think that Sony's out of touch with gamer. It's because Microsoft has people like Gerri Elliot who will do anything and everything to stifle competition. Why do you think Joe Shmoe thinks that there's no Mac software? In America, people respect money. Bill Gates is known as the richest, most powerful man in the world. Everyone assumes their competition is doomed to failure and doesn't buy because they're afraid M$ will just dominate the market anyway. Open source intitiatives like the one in the featured article are a way around this. We need to take note when Microsoft tries to cut off open source at a political level.
Here are the final two paragraphs of the article:
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
It depends on how you look at it. Microsoft has certainly won countless battles to this point, but one oft-overlooked point these days is that Microsoft is hemorrhaging marketshare basically everywhere. Regardless of how fast it happens (although it is accelerating right now), people are moving away from Windows to Mac OS X and Linux. The interest in OpenOffice exists because people are starting to grow tired of Microsoft Office. Firefox won more than 10% of the internet browser marketshare, and almost all of that came right out of IE's stranglehold. AOL and Yahoo have completely and totally beaten down Windows Messenger. Apple's iTunes - while likely to take a mild hit from URGE - isn't going to lose its majority share any time soon. And let's not forget Google.. does anyone really believe that MSN Search stands any kind of a chance?
This isn't to say that Microsoft is going to lose its majority status where it is in the majority (most places) any time soon, but it's worth noting regardless.
So, has Microsoft conquered? I don't think so. A people are only conquered when there is no hope for their victory, and we are still in the very early stages of what will eventually result in Microsoft being given a more fitting role in the computing community. A role where there are viable options, and true competition. I can't wait.
You know, FY2005 $12,600,000,000 in profits can go a long way.
So yes, they could win. Considering what they could do having that kind of cash at their disposal, it is just amazing at how nice they play.
tinfoil time: I am told one could arrange a hit for about 10k... which means MS could 'take care' of some 1,260,000 OSS developers.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
So, it doesn't look to me like this bears on Microsoft's products very much at all. They aren't saying ditch MS Office for Open Office, or ditch Windows for Linux. They aren't saying use open standard formats instead of closed proprietary ones. They aren't even saying you should prefer open source software development tools to proprietary ones.
If I read correctly, what they're saying is that people should develop new courseware and let other people use and improve it. Which is pretty much the way scholarship works. The job of the scholar, as we now understand it, is to innovate. You can't expect every instructor to teach the same topic the same way, much less institutions. Scholars have to use other scholar's work and have to let their others use their work. The only rule is to give credit where credit is due. Scholars who don't let others take their work and improve on it, or tailor to their own purposes, might as well move to a cave at the top of a distant mountain. Sages they may be, but scholars they are not.
This looks to me likea pointless, self inflicted PR wound.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Business should be a "sport" not a "battle"! Most industries follow that model, there's only so much work one company can do RIGHT, so it's more like sports where different teams lead each season. Nobody expects the winning NFL team to hurt or maim the other players.. that's not sporting. The other teams still show up next season and play again. Microsoft, Oracle, Walmart, and others see business as "WAR".. trying to win all the games at any cost.. trouble is that it's not "fun" anymore. And you have 1000's of people out of work because some already rich company wants ANOTHER .1% profit so squashed their companies with half-rate low cost products and FUD advertizing.
in this case it's is from a Federal agency... when somebody like MA wants to implement OSS in schools or offices they can point to this statement as "approval" for moving to OSS projects. M$ doesn't want ANY public recognition of OSS at the federal level. Imagine the effect if 1 State's budget for Office went to OpenOffice.org instead!!! That would cover their funding for several YEARS, but be a drop to Microsoft. The money would speed an OSS project up by 5 years or better... then still be FREE... MS can't let that happen at all costs.
I also find it disengenous that she claimed no prior knowlege of the paragraph. Sho sits on the board. She must read the reports. By doing it after the discussion is closed they figure it'll be difficult to undo their reversal.
In related news, Mr. Tony Soprano today slammed the media for attempting to stir up public pressure through exposure of his extortion racket
davecb5620@gmail.com
should read:
'Later that morning, [Gerri] Elliott [of Microsoft] gave in, writing: "I will back down on this now, since it's more damaging to Microsoft to awaken the slumbering Higher Ed sector with a controversy than to let this go into a report that few decision-makers will pay attention to anyway."'
free software, open standards, open file formats, no software patents.
A free market without copyright monopoly* for software, closed and open competing fairly...
Actually Adam Smith, the father of freemarket capitalism, was against copyrights and patents, believing the monopolies thus granted were a threat to freemarkets. He believed if someone could improve or produce and sale cheaper a product he should be able to.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I live in the UK and I for one know that I HATE seeing my tax money being spent on M$ Windows in local government and in schools when they could be using Linux for free.
If you aren't far left by the age of 18 you have no heart. If you aren't far right by 30 you have no brain.
Windows is much better. When it starts up, you get glossy graphics with beautiful windows. The start menu is just one click away. It's so easy to use. Not like this login/password nonsense of Linux. In fact, any user can go up to your Windows computer and do whatever he wants.