Microsoft to Give Away Software

dptalia writes "In an attempt to suck up to the European Union, Microsoft has announced that it will give away software allowing multiple operating systems to run simultaneously. Microsoft says this is part of their strategy to make more software available through OSS." From the article: "Georg Greve, president of the Free Software Foundation Europe, said he had not seen the details of Microsoft's giveaway but cautioned against assuming it was motivated only by pragmatism or a new spirit of cooperation. 'If Microsoft were doing this for altruistic reasons, it would be a first,' Greve said. 'I think they are probably trying to get more machines on the Windows platform, and they may also be trying to improve relations in Brussels.'"

Comments

They're not giving software away...

[Anonymous Coward]

UHHH

Its giving away (if you believe that) the data layout for its virtual hard disk (VHD) format used by VirtualPC and Virtual Server products.

I don't see anything about giving SOFTWARE away

"Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" all over again

[Iphtashu Fitz]

announcing Tuesday that it would give away software to enable computers to run multiple operating systems at the same time.

So now they're going to do to VMWare exactly what they did to Netscape and others?

a few differences

[Phantom of the Opera]

For one, VM Ware is really tight. The people who use VMWare are more technically oriented than the general browsing public. Netscape was big when it was attacked, but it was far from bug free.

Yes, they will try the triple E tactic. It is what they know. If they knew how to write good quality software and did that, this would be a different sort of competition.

Re:a few differences

[eMbry00s]

This isn't EEE. Here, they try to make people ignore other's products (by offering their own for free) long enough for the competitors to die off, whereafter they can ignore the issue content that they are the prime leader in that software field aswell - making them capable of leveraging their office and server software, which is where their money is at.

The EEE technique is about conforming to standards, and then extending their products to use those standards along with proprietary parts. Quench competition since they aren't allowed to use this patented technology, and then rule supreme again.

Different tactics, same anti-competitive bullshit.

Some altruism perhaps?

[TheFlyingGoat]

What would MS have to do to please all of you? In the past year they've adopted more open standards, turning on a software firewall by default, submitted their own open standards, released more software for free, and improved their security and standards compliance by focusing on those with Vista and IE7. Granted, each of these things wasn't done just to help the world... some of it was done to help Microsoft's market share and public perception. However, the end result is the same: MS seems to be getting more friendly toward OSS software.

Each thing they do is met with people saying they're JUST doing it to increase market share, or to trap customers into certain situations, or to extinguish competition. Hell, even the article about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donating TONS of money to good causes was met with people complaining about how Bill Gates made that money in the first place.

It's quite easy these days to purchase a computer without an operating system on it. It's just as easy to install non-MS software on a Windows system, setup a dual boot system, or set a non-MS program as the default handler for certain file types. It's been a while since I've seen a company go out of business because of Microsoft. In fact, many more companies are in business because Microsoft makes it relatively easy to program for their platform (look at all the crap software that's out there and tell me that it takes more than an idiot to make a Windows program). Lots of linux zealots say that they won't give MS the benefit of the doubt because of their past practices, but Microsoft's past practices now involve a couple of years of doing the right thing.

Sure, there's a few blemishes (genuine advantage, DRM) mixed in with that good stuff, but overall MS has been doing a decent job lately. Perhaps it's time you all try looking at it with a balanced outlook rather than immediately thinking the worst.

Re:Some altruism perhaps?

[cyber-vandal]

Because:
(a) they're only doing it because of two very expensive legal actions against them by the governments of the US and the EU; and
(b) time and again they have shown that they can't be trusted; and
(c) habitual criminals don't tend to inspire trust.

Re:Some altruism perhaps?

[Xtifr]

> What would MS have to do to please all of you?

ALL of us? There's probably nothing they can do. IBM still has fervent detractors after two decades of trying to improve their image. However, I see little sign that MS is even trying. This, as others have noticed, is a fairly trivial thing they've done here, misreported, and quite possibly designed as an attack on VMWare, not a generous giveaway.

> Each thing they do is met with people saying they're JUST doing it to increase market share, or to trap customers into certain situation, or to extinguish competition.

Yes, and IBM still gets a lot of that too. And available evidence suggests that it's still sometimes true for IBM, and still usually true for MS. MS has proven, repeatedly, that they're willing to lie, cheat and steal to get what they want. And they've proven that they're willing to give stuff away solely for the purpose of undermining their competitors. The fact is that they've been utter rat-bastards for nearly three decades, and it only looks like they're changing if you squint funny and try to ignore a whole lot of stuff.

> It's been a while since I've seen a company go out of business because of Microsoft.

Then you haven't been looking very hard. Of course, they're going after some tougher nuts these days. Symantec and Google aren't going to simply fold up and blow away at the first adverse wind. And Nintendo and Sony have a lot of experience with tough compettion. But a lot of smaller A/V companies (just as a for-example) are dropping off the map.

> Microsoft's past practices now involve a couple of years of doing the right thing.

While I agree that there are signs they're trying to do better (amazing what a major investigation by the EU will do), their current practices still involve lots of questionable stuff. They've got a long way to go before you can even begin to pretend that the balance of their behavior is "the right thing". And even then, it's going to be a long time before they make up for the harm they've done, and even longer before some people are going to be willing to forgive and forget. Again, just ask IBM about that last.

You seem to think that any little not-wrong thing they do should be an enough to make us forget all the harm they've done in the past, and all the harm they appear to be continuing to do. Well, sorry, bub, we're not that stupid or gullible. Maybe it's time you took a more balanced outlook instead of immediately assuming the best!

Re:Some altruism perhaps?

[Aceticon]

The day the contracts between MS and the big PC manufacturers are such that PCs are priced without an OS and Windows is an extra option with it's own cost is the day MS will have done enough.

Until then they're just taking advantage of their monopoly position to screw us all up ... continuously - so don't expect most of us around here to give any big kudos for whatever small moves they take here and there to make the whole "get screwed my MS" process slightly less painfull ("Pull your pants down and prepare to take it again. Don't worry, this time you get a cookie").

Re:Some altruism perhaps?

[Monchanger]

The other replies bring up lots of reasons we technical people don't like Microsoft. I don't like having to fix other people's computers all the time due to the whole spyware/virus weakness of Windows. Nor do I like it when my rather well taken care of machine at work needs to be restarted for no good reason. No, Linux and its applications aren't bug free. Yes, there's plenty of crappy software in the OSS world. Thankfully, distros like Debian and Ubuntu get rid of a lot of them, so its less often that one finds software that doesn't work right. On these points and more, the Linux crowd is right to complain, and no "free software giveaway"s or donations to various causes is going to change that.

Me, I'd start off by asking for less lying and bullying, which seem to be almost uniquely Microsoft's in the software world:
* No more saying "we can't remove the browser from the OS", when they have more than adequate resources to rewrite vast parts of the operating system.
* No bullshiting the EU saying they'll create thousands and thousands of jobs by releasing a piece of software which isn't that monumentally different from the one already out there.
* No more using the "user error" excuse whenever a user complains.
* No more purchasing of false research saying Windows is "cheaper" than Linux. It's not always cheaper. Sometimes it will and part of the time it won't. I know it's "just marketing" to say that you're the "#1 product", but these false studies are well beyond reasonable marketing.
* No more pushing businesses out of the market by buying their competitors and dumping their product, by attaching it to Windows for free. Healthy competition, actual innovation, and acquiring other companies is fine. Abuing a monopoly isn't.
* No illegaly funding rediculous lawsuits against IBM for Linux.
* Since the big builders like Dell are not allowed to sell lower priced computers (and don't tell me they don't want to- Wallmart sure did when Linux became ready for its customers) by not having to pay for a Windows license. Hardware manufacturers have no trouble ignoring Linux because there's no financial incentive to spend the extra few bucks. It's all very convenient for Microsoft, but not for me.

On that last note, when my computer's power supply fails, I get "you need to have the original operating system installed" from my very large warranty provider. On the day I get a different answer, that will be the day when I'll start hating Microsoft.

Re:Maybe it will be rigged

[killjoe]

Fox is anti democrat. They are against half of the population of america.

Slashdot LEANS anti MS (It's debatable and I'll get back to that) so they are against one corporation.

What's wrong with being against a corporation which everybody, even their defenders acknowledge acts unethically? Not one person who defends MS stands up and says "MS is a beacon of light and hope to the world" it's always "Sure they have done some crappy things in the past, but they are doing this one thing OK" or "sure they acted unethically but all businesses do" or "sure they acted unethically but they should not have been prosecuted because the anti-trust laws are bogus". Nobody, not even the most ardent defender of MS disputes the fact that the company is unethical.

Why do you get so worked up MS anyway? It's just another corporation, there are thousands of corporations. If I said Nissan, maytag, or rockport was a crappy corporation or made crappy products would you have a knipshiin about that?

Now does /. lean anti MS? I don't think so. There are a dozens if not hundreds of MS trolls, astro turfers and shills here on /. Take a survey of the highest ranked posts and you will see that most of them are pro MS. Pro MS comments always get upmodded especially if the take the edge of by saying "sure they are unethical but.....".

Finally.

So what? I am sick of hearing this complaint. If you don't like people critizing MS then go to gotdotnet or any one of hundreds of web sites where people dance around singing holy holy holy about MS and Bill Gates. It's a big internet, there is room for everybody.