Slashdot Mirror
Would You Date Microsoft?
teslatug writes "Channel9 has an interview with Bill Hilf of the Open Source Software Lab at Microsoft. Hilf argues that the majority of companies advocate open source solely so that they can drive customers to their core business, which is not open source. He calls this his 'donut theory.' Hilf also sees RedHat in this model, with support being their core. He compares this to dating, where you have to offer your date value in order to entice them. In his view, Microsoft offers developers a platform where they can make money selling their software. The virtues of 'free as in freedom' and the value of open source to the desktop users are skirted, but he makes an interesting point about big businesses like IBM and Oracle."
Real numbers - MS is what 90%+ of the market? If I wouldn't date them then I would be limiting myself to less than %10 of the available dates? Of course I date MS, I want to work in the IT business and they are most of it. I'm not saying I would ignore the other insignificant share either. I'll date anyone who will put out. duh.
Well, I came here for the hilf jokes; don't disappoint me. :)
How do you know you've never installed a new kernel in Windows? Do you think it has been static, and hasn't been updated numerous times through both Windows Update and new versions of Windows? Do you not think that Microsoft has hundreds of internal kernel revisions that never get out to the public? This is simply the way that software development is done -- the fact that it's noticeable in the Linux world is a testament to its open development model.
That having been said, I don't know why you "had" to install a new kernel. Did you require a module which hasn't been back-ported? Did some other piece of software have the new kernel as a pre-req? Or did you just notice one come down the pipe when you did a yum update?
Every OS has kernel updates. Linux is admittedly more susceptible to updates due to the way that device drivers (modules) are tied to it, and the lack of a stable binary interface for drivers (which requires them to be compiled against the kernel you're running). In the end, however, it generally works the same for the end user: updates give you new features, functionality, and drivers. Package management tools like yum make this sort of update process easy.
I have a lot of problems with Linux on the desktop as well (on the client side, I'm a Mac OS X person), but this seems to be such a silly one to complain about. The Windows kernel is updated all the time via Windows Update -- you just don't see the word "kernel" on the display, and thus don't realize it. Linux is just more open about this sort of thing.
Yaz.
Everytime a Linux article comes up, out comes loads of people who barely use Linux to its fulliest, or at least seems so by their comments. Yet they are more than happy to public bash it on problems that maybe never existed, or no longer. Exist. I use Linux as my primary operating system, and I know for a fact that at least 80% of the common complaints are pure horse manure. You guys can make a guy ashamed to call himself a geek. If Windows is your thing, then go right ahead, but leave the penguin in peace.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Let me just say this Bill Hilf has an internet persona of an assole. I hope he's a better person in "real life". But his comments seem to always have some overtone against what his official title should stand for. It's one thing to be against open source:that's one decision. But it is total rubbish to be in a team called under the title of an Open Source lab and always be spewing these rubbish sprinkled with some truths.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
I don't agree with the premise you're putting forward about the programmers being 'bad'. What is bad is less about the programmers and more about the end product:
a) you're beholden to the original developers to make changes
b) if the original developer goes belly up you're screwed in terms up updates/changes
c) you can only run the software where they say you can run it ("We can't be bothered to do a Windows/Linux/BSD/SkyOS/64bit etc. etc. port")
d) the software won't necessary survive its useful life, it will only be maintained as long as it is commerically viable for the closed source developer to maintain it.
That's just a few I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more.
I think the question is wrong. Since they compare FOSS to going on a date, then paying for software would be like going to a hooker, right? Would you "date" a hooker? I wouldn't.. :P
$HOME is where the
-- silver_p
Wow. So IBM only supports Linux because it thinks it'll make them money? Next you're going to tell me that Apple only sells iPods for the same reason. Or that the purpose of a business is to make a profit.
In addition to trying to make open-source business models seem just like commercial ones, as in "they just change the core of their doughnut" (from intellectual property to support services), this Hilf fellow isn't very accurate (honest?) about the actual core of Microsoft's doughnut. Microsoft's core asset isn't Windows and Office. Microsoft's core asset is their monopoly, without which their whole model collapses (or, if you like his metaphor, their doughnut crumbles).
Their monopoly is based on their core values of non-interoperability, embrace-and-extinguish methods, and so forth. Now, this Hilf seems like a friendly guy, and he does make some good points. So I would like to believe him when he says that OpenXML and the ODF plugin are Microsoft 'opening up'; I would like to believe him when he says Microsoft intends to compete in some areas, cooperate in other ones, with Linux. I would like to, but I'm not sure I can. Still, my cynicism is a bit milder after seeing this interview, I'm not sure exactly why.
The virtues of 'free as in freedom' and the value of open source to the desktop users are skirted
Which I will point out as the single most revealing point, by virtue of its absence, of the entire link.
Virtually every criticism I've seen about open source, "free" software, and Linux in general, centers around a single (irrelevant) point: Not business-friendly.
You also hear "not ready for the desktop" or "too focused on developers", but those only matter in relation to the POV of trying to sell a product, in that they reduce the potential customer base. Thus even those classics reduce to "not business-friendly".
Well, I have news for Hilf, and Roland, and IDC, and all the rest who go on about why Linux and open source will fail - open source doesn't exist in a form that can fail. Yes, you have assorted groups with the goal of advancing open source (RMS, Debian), and various companies who have pretended to embrace the idea (IBM), but as much as they may contribute to the underlying idea of free software, they don't embody it in some mortality-inducing way. They can vanish tomorrow, and I can still build my own Linux distro from sources.
So, when any criticism of open source "skirts" the issue of free-as-in-freedom, you can ignore that criticism without a second thought. Because "open source" MEANS free-as-in-freedom. It doesn't depend on any company or person or government. Laws and patents and liabilities can make it harder to obtain and contribute to, but NOTHING can ever eliminate it completely. As long as a single fourth-world geek with a bicycle-powered laptop can compile a "hello world" program, open source will remain.
I thank IBM for its massive contributions of code and ideas. I thank RedHat for its PR work. I thank Linus for the kernel itself. But the abstraction doesn't need any of them to survive. Making a profit counts as a nice side effect, not the goal, of open source.
Yes, Windows works until it doesn't. Then you're screwed.
http://outcampaign.org/