Seven Reasons Microsoft Loves Open Source

tlockney writes "Next week at Microsoft's MIX, whurley will be leading a discussion on 'Open Source, the Web, Interoperability, and Microsoft'. To kick off a bit of pre-session discussion and enlist the help of others in putting Microsoft on the spot, whurley, king of all things open source at BMC has written an article entitled 'Seven Reasons Microsoft Loves Open Source'."

Comments

Reason zero

[cyberianpan]

They can read it & re-engineer it as paid for product !

Re:Reason zero

[Chouonsoku]

They're saving that for the press conference that covers "Why Microsoft Dislikes Open Source".

Re:Reason zero

[illeism]

I seem to remember a story about Microsoft inviting some Linux guys to Redmond for an open source get together and then being jerks and hosting it with a foldout table and lemonade in a parking garage.
Anyone care to confirm this story and/or post a link - If I'm wrong or remembering incorrectly, somebody set me straight(I can't find the actual story)
The moral of this story is that a few years ago Microsoft didn't think open source was worth worrying about and now they are on the wagon...

Re:Reason zero

[truthsearch]

In 2003 Microsoft listed Open Source in their SEC filings as a threat to their business model. Before then they mostly ignored it. Then it was "a cancer." And now they pretend to like open source. I hardly consider them "on the wagon" as much as realizing they must augment some of their practices in order to compete affectively.

Re:Reason zero

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ch ronicle/archive/1999/02/16/BU71327.DTL

Re:Reason zero

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft...are on the wagon

You mean they're recovering addicts?

"Uh, hi. My name is Steve and I havn't thrown a chair now for, uh, 15 days!" *golf clap*

Re:Reason zero

[Anonymous Coward]

There's another idea they stole from Apple.

Re:Reason zero

[daem0n1x]

I don't think they're on the wagon. There are several reasons for Microsoft hating open source:

1. Open source encourages open standards and interoperability. Microsoft encourages the monoculture.
2. Open source levels everybody. The algorithms and methods are available to everyone, you cease to have an advantage based on secrecy and have to compete on the same level as anyone, and be really good to stand out.
3. Open source frees software. They may like BSD-like licenses because they allow them to steal code, but most of the open-source licenses won't allow that, and it must be really annoying, all that 1st quality, freebie code that they just can't use.

Re:Reason zero

[afxgrin]

Embrace and extend. It's the same crap like usual. The 7 reasons article even specifies they support "open source" and not GPL'd "free software" like Linux. Nothing's changed in Redmond except Billy G's charitable donations, and fellow executives wanting to make space ships.

I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[majortom1981]

Everybody keps saying that linux would put Microsoft out of business. No it won't . I honestly think microsoft would do what apple did. Linux would be the main part of windows and microsoft would make the user interface the standard windows one. Sorry I didnt describe it right. I can see microsoft doing that.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[cyborg_zx]

It doesn't work like that - if MS is forced to use a UNIX based OS derivative in order to survive they may not go out of business but it is endgame as far as dominance is concerned. That is a lose situation for MS, not a win.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[ettlz]

if MS is forced to use a UNIX based OS derivative in order to survive they may not go out of business but it is endgame as far as dominance is concerned.

To say nothing of the fact that UNIX and NT are architecturally very different animals.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[cyborg_zx]

Indeed, one has got to presume that in such an eventuality the lack of experience in the UNIX space would place MS at a disadvantage. (Although I have got to presume also that MS are not stupid enough not to have plenty of engineers who do not know UNIX so that they can 1) understand the enemy 2) help to get customers to migrate from UNIX).

Also people seem to underestimate the problems of corporate inertia, as if MS could just one day decide to change everything and it would happen: just like that. It doesn't work like that.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[majortom1981]

Microsoft knows unix. In the 90's they partnered weith a small company called proginet based on Long Island . They partnered to help windows machines talk to mainframes. I dont know if they still ahve this partner ship or not. Trust me though Microsoft knows unix even though they dont publically state it. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3649/is_19 9507/ai_n8710090

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[Stewie241]

Although I have got to presume also that MS are not stupid enough not to have plenty of engineers who do not know UNIX so that they can 1) understand the enemy 2) help to get customers to migrate from UNIX

Wow... is that a TRIPLE negative? I think you mean:
Although I have got to presume also that MS are smart enough to have plenty of engineers who know UNIX so that they can 1) understand the enemy 2) help to get customers to migrate from UNIX

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[cyborg_zx]

Yes that was fairly borked.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[fitten]

I've wished for Linux's kernel/stability with Microsoft's quality of development tools for a very long time now. Having VS.NET on top of Linux would be one of my dreams. I mean the fully Microsoft VS.NET or at least Mono having complete feature parity. The Mono guys are making good progress but the target is still moving a little fast for them to nail it down.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[Anonymous Coward]

If MS just provided a desktop environment as a rival to Gnome or KDE then they would sell zero units. Why? If they don't own (and own the padlocks on) the backend then they have no control over what is going on - all they would provide is a frontend. Frontends can do very little that is unique without becoming quasi backends. So if all they did was provide a pure frontend then why would anyone pay for it when Gnome/KDE/others are there to provide the same functionality for free?

MS has a pretty weak case on "owning" the GUI layout - there are enough examples of prior art to ensure they couldn't enforce any wide ranging clampdown on something like KDE - thus people would just download KDE for free.

In summary - it isn't going to happen.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[peragrin]

have you ever heard of OS X? a BSD backend on top of a proprietary front end. a new file system layout and your done.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[FudRucker]

Linux wont put Microsoft out of business. Microsoft will put themselves out of business that is if they don't learn to adjust the the market. proprietary products are painting themselves in to a corner & a niche. as OSs & software becomes more of a commodity. maybe sooner than most people think...

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[Anonymous Coward]

There would be absolutely no reason for Microsoft to port Win32 on top of Linux. The NT kernel is more than capable as the OS. It is a microkernel design with isolated loadable plugin subsystems. Win32 just happens to be the subsystem with which most people are familiar. Microsoft has released other subsystems, including their own limited POSIX subsystem and an OS/2 subsystem (which was the original subsystem as Windows NT was designed to be OS/3 with IBM, until Windows 3.0 took off). Later Microsoft bought Softway and further developed the Interix POSIX subsystem releasing that as a part of Services for UNIX which is now a free download for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 and ships on the DVD for a number of the Windows Vista versions.

What MS could possibly do is instead further extend Interix to include more compatibility with one or more flavors of Linux, including support for ELF binaries. They could include an implementation of X11 on top of the desktop composition engine with little trouble. There have been implementations of X11 for Windows for some time already. Microsoft doesn't really have a lot of reason to do this.

Ultimately the two things that would benefit Windows the most would be for Microsoft to finally allow security to trump third-party legacy and enforce the security model which has been in Windows NT since it's inception. It's already more granular than the security model available in Linux. Third party software could be addressed potentially by either including a VM environment which emulates Windows XP or Windows 98, sort of like Mac OS Classic, or through fine tuning this virtualized jail concept that User Account Control enforces.

The other thing that Microsoft could do, and they are slowly moving in this direction, would be to finally make Windows into a microkernel. The source of the majority of the instability in the system is due to faults in drivers and since drivers are loaded into kernel mode the only option the OS has is to fail, according to the security standards set by the US government in C2. If the drivers were instead loaded into a separate privelege level, such as ring1 or even ring3, the OS can protect itself from those drivers and degrade gracefully in the case of failure. If ATI's piece of garbage Catalyst driver fails the video would go away and the OS could attempt to restart it a couple of times before deciding to fail.

Note that Linux is not a microkernel. Neither is Mac OSX despite it's Mach underpinnings. In both cases a fault in the driver causes the OS to fail, e.g. kernel panic. The best reference OS for a microkernel is QNX.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[Grishnakh]

I think there's a bit of a difference there. The "BSD backed" is really a custom microkernel (Darwin), with BSD userspace tools. But this really isn't important, because the thing that Apple provides that's really different and proprietary is the system libraries: Cocoa, Carbon, etc. These are the APIs that application writers code to for the Mac platform. Because of this, you can't just compile Darwin for your Intel machine and run Mac apps; the APIs are closed-source. Trying to clone that would be an effort on the order of the WINE project; as we've seen with WINE, it doesn't really matter what kernel you're using, within reason, it's the system APIs that matter for running applications.

If Windows ever used a Linux kernel (hah!), there'd really be very little difference from the current status quo. They'd probably have to fix up the NTFS driver a lot (or use a different filesystem--most users wouldn't notice or care), they'd certainly benefit from all the built-in drivers, but the graphics subsystem would probably be a big showstopper since they'd either have to use X and change a lot of things, or make their own subsystem built into the kernel which they seem to like to do. Other than that, they'd certainly keep their whole system libraries proprietary and secret, which would make it non-trivial for people to run Windows applications on free software. Yes, they could use WINE, but that's still trying to hit a moving target and is developed slowly because of the need for reverse-engineering. Personally, I don't see why MS would ever bother using a Linux kernel; it doesn't provide them much technical benefit.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[AuMatar]

Fully POSIX compliant? I know a half dozen things in their networking code thas broken by the POSIX spec alone. They have lip service to POSIX compliance, but are nowhere near fully compliant.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[_Sprocket_]

Everybody keps saying that linux would put Microsoft out of business.

I'm not sure who "everybody" is... but such claims ignore history. It ignores the very impressive turn-on-a-dime business strategy Microsoft pulled off after they initially failed to realize the importance of the Internet. And it ignores a historical precedence in the changing of IBM's desktop hardware market when it shifted from a proprietary to commodity platform.

Micorosoft is not going to simply curl up and die. They've proven to be agile enough to react to threats / lost opportunities. And they have the momentum and resources to deal with a suddenly difficult market.

If we're lucky, Microsoft will become the software / OS equivalent of IBM. Sure - they're still powerhouses in the Industry... but they no longer control it. They have influence but have to compete with every other market player for that influence to pay off and drive the market in their desired direction.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[UnknowingFool]

Everybody keps saying that linux would put Microsoft out of business. No it won't . I honestly think microsoft would do what apple did. Linux would be the main part of windows and microsoft would make the user interface the standard windows one. Sorry I didnt describe it right. I can see microsoft doing that.

That sounds plausible except for a few minor details. The first of which is the GPL. One of the major cornerstones of the GPL is that there are protections to prevent people from exploiting GPL code in the way MS would certainly exploit it. Microsoft has built an empire of locking every other competitor out (sometimes through illegal means). The famous extend part of the embrace, extend, extinguish ploy would not be allowed by the GPL.

Also, Apple was able to develop OS X not using Linux. Apple acquired NeXT which had developed some advanced technologies used in OS X. Also they based their kernel on BSD which does not have the same restrictions as Linux.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[DECS]

You are uninformed.

Apple not only maintained is own Unix distro of A/UX, sold AIX servers, and created its own Linux distro prior to OS/X, but also ported the Mac environment to other Unix variants, using MAE and laster MAS.

- Steve Jobs and 20 Years of Apple Servers

And everybody knows that NT's "POSIX compliance" was a bullshit dance designed to make NT legal to sell to the government. NT never offered anything more than pretend support for POSIX, and it was of no more importance to Microsoft as a subsystem within NT than was OS/2.

Further, since POSIX compatilbility is techniclly a paid seal of approval on a specific implementation of Unix APIs, of course Linux as general idea can't ever techically pay to attach the POSIX trademark to itself in the way Microsoft pretended to.

The reality is that the only value of POSIX is as a general synonym for "Unix-like compatibility." In the real world, Linux currently helps define what that is; NT does not offer this at all.

Are you really trying to argue that NT provides some useful sort of compatibility for Unix apps? Citing the Wikipedia as a source does not do much to create credibility for your conjecture.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[maxwell demon]

Of course not having plenty of engineers who do not know UNIX is not the same as having plenty of engineers who do know UNIX.

To take an extreme case, if they had no engineers at all, the original statement would be true, while the repacement one wouldn't. OTOH, if there are plenty engineers of both types, the original statement isn't true, but the replacement statement is.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[Laur]

At least NT is already fully POSIX compliant

Did you even read that link? NT is only POSIX compliant when using Microsoft Services for Unix, which is hardly the out of the box configuration. Anyone who has used SFU knows its limits, regular Windows apps and SFU apps don't interact very well together, if at all.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[Penguinisto]

Personally, I don't see why MS would ever bother using a Linux kernel; it doesn't provide them much technical benefit.

Then again, the NT microkernel seems a bit overstressed for what it's being pushed to do in Vista, and it's starting to show... badly. Two versions from now, they're going to have to replace it with something... 'cause what they got now simply isn't going to cut the mustard (well, unless they up the minimum HW requirements to an 8-core box + 16GB of RAM + four SLI-chained vidcards...)

That said, I do agree that it prolly won't be Linux - MSFT will most likely snag the latest *BSD kernel (one that has no GPL encumbrance) and lock it down good and hard. Then they'll build the world's ugliest set of wrappers and APIs for it, then call the results "innovation".

/P

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[easyTree]

Uhh, yeah, it does. Years ago, when they thought the internet was a fad that would have no long-term importance, they chose to ignore it - then, all-of-a-sudden there was a sea-change within the company and they issued statements to detail their new direction and understanding of the internet - swiftly followed by the arrival of dot net.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[cyborg_zx]

Your retrospective goggles seem to be compressing time. I suggest you try fixing them.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[mysticgoat]

if MS is forced to use a UNIX based OS derivative... it is endgame as far as dominance is concerned. That is a lose situation for MS, not a win.

That is certainly a loss for Bill Gates and perhaps the rest of the original cadre of MS corporate officers. Throughout the 80s and 90s, MS was steered consistently toward a "vision" of dominance that really wasn't profit oriented. MS has consistently passed up the opportunity to make profits in its efforts to become the dominant player in different digital markets. It has thrown more money down the toilet to prevent someone else from succeeding in an area where it wasn't good enough to win on merit than many companies had earned during those 20 years.

When MS gives up this foolishness and starts acting like a profit-oriented business, it will almost certainly lose its tarnish and become a respectable member of the business community.

That will be a long-term winning situation for MS. The only losers will be Gates (who has already thrown in the towel), Balmer, and the rest of the original dreamers with their juvenile fantasies about attaining world dominance.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly know nothing about OS kernels. The NT kernel is a marvel of technology that runs circles around the Linux kernel. If you go research where Microsoft is going with kernel technology you will see it's even more forward thinking that NT. Get onto the Microsoft Research website and look for "Singularity".

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[Grishnakh]

I'm sorry, I don't see it that way. I don't think changing kernels is going to help anything. The problem is that Vista tries to do too much, namely DRM. All the DRM crap they added in is probably tied into everything, right into the kernel, and of course that's going to slow everything down. It'd be the same way if they took a clean BSD kernel and loaded it down with a lot of DRM crap.

As for two versions from now, that's over a decade away, probably more, at the rate that MS releases major new OS versions now. I have a feeling things are going to be extremely different in computing-land by then. I'll go ahead and put out my predictions right now. Things are going to be extreme, one way or another, but I can't say in which direction it'll go.

1) MS is going to collapse because of too much pressure from OSS competition, stagnation, lack of customer interest, ultimate failure of their lock-in strategies, etc. At best, pieces of the company will spin off and live on: Xbox and Office are the two main candidates for survival, though the latter will be a shadow of its former self. Windows will be dead, and MacOS and Linux will be the two dominant systems.

2) MS will squash OSS in the USA (and possibly other 1st-world countries like Canada and EU) due to patents, DRM, and other devious tactics mostly involving the legal system. OSS will survive to some extent, but will be largely underground, as US-based OSS users will have to download everything from servers in places like Russia and India, and all development will have to take place there as well (or at least stored there, as US-based developers will have to do their work in secrecy). Other countries which don't honor our stupid software patents will dump Windows and move to Linux: India, Russia, and China will be leaders in this. This will result in a rift between the two parts of the world, and greater innovation in the Linux-using countries. Eventually, the US economy will collapse due to lack of technical leadership and innovation and China will become the world superpower. EU's future depends greatly on how much they follow the US or if they decide to grow a brain and do their own thing.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[daybot]

Are you really trying to argue that NT provides some useful sort of compatibility for Unix apps? Citing the Wikipedia as a source does not do much to create credibility for your conjecture.

And citing roughlydrafted is better? Sorry, couldn't resist.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[renegadesx]

OSX is based on BSD so they don't really have to give any code back. GPL is a different beast

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[maxume]

Microsoft has 115 times the revenues of Redhat. They have more revenue than Redhat, Novell, Canonical, Mandriva, Linspire, etc, combined. IBM is a bit of a wild card as they are huge and it is a boring boring task to try and figure out how much revenue they attribute to open source software, but the point is, if what you say is going to happen, it is going to be a while.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[DECS]

I am you insensitive clod!

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[kripkenstein]

There would be absolutely no reason for Microsoft to port Win32 on top of Linux. The NT kernel is more than capable as the OS.

The (current) NT kernel is quite reasonable, but that does not imply your conclusion, that Microsoft have no reason to replace it with the Linux kernel. Let's say that they are equally capable for sake of argument, still, Linux can be used by Microsoft at no cost. Maintaining the NT kernel all by themselves is expensive.

(Of course there are other factors here, I just mentioned one.)

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't, personally.

First, I'm going to be a little pedantic here, sorry. Apple used FreeBSD as the basis for Darwin, it's very important to point that out, since they'd have ever done it with Linux, sincethey'd be forced to GPL a bunch of stuff. Forget that Apple does in act share their modifications to the base system with the FreeBSD project (that's probably where things like read/write HFS/HFS+ support, and trivial to set-up appletalk and macos-networking, and all that fancy mac integration stuff comes from) But they do this because they choose to, not because they're forced to. That's part of why they went with a BSD system. There's also a level of integration that doesn't exist in Linux, but does in FreeBSD. (There are performance, security, and scalability issues too, but I'm not in the mood or a flame war)

Second, Microsoft ALREADY does something very much like this, except arguably "better" conceptually, its just that so few people know about SUA/SFU/Interix. Vista already has a hacked-up version of OpenBSD fully integrated into the OS, acting as a parallel POSIX subsystem running side-by-side with the win32 subsystem, on top of the NT kernel, in the form of SUA (Services for Unix Applications). Windows 2000 (pro), XP (pro) and 2003 had SFU (Services for UNIX) availible as a free (as in beer) addon. And in fact, they've had this for a very long time, NT4 also had a parallel POSIX subsystem.

Its actually very nicely thought out conceptually, both subsystems run side-by-side. Unix Apps run on the Interix subsystem, which can quite easy make callsto the win32 API, and native apps run on the win32 subsystem (though, technically, now POSIX apps are native apps, too). Given that Interix includes X11 cliet libraries, you can run remote UNIX gui apps on your windows desktop, on top of Interix. There are even third party X11 servers (both proprietary and Open) with all the bells and whistles (hardware acceleration, etc) which allow you to run Interix apps on the Windows desktop.

There's a fairly sizable community built around it, which ofers support, and ports third party applications to Interix (http://www.interopsystems.com/tools/warehouse.htm ). The trouble is, as previously mentioned, its a pretty hacked-up version of OpeBSD, so porting stuff takes a sizable amount of effort, though it does include BSD-style pkg_tools which makes installation and maintenence a breeze. NetBSD ported their PKG_tools and parts of its repository to it, as well.

They'll never, EVER do that with Linux, though, it would force them to adopt the GPL, and it would to a certain degree kill system integration, as parts build on top of the system (read: derivative works) would legally have to be GPL'ed as well, any changes they make to it would also have to be GPL, and shared. Any device drivers, filesystem changes, schedulers, etc would haveto be GPL'ed, too, unless they keep the NT kernel (as they did with Interix), they'd essentially be legally bound to help their competition. Not going to happen.

Also, on the topic of system integration, there are non-license related issues that factor in, the BSDs are, by nature integrated to a level Linux cannot hope to achieve with its current development system (ex. the BSDs aren't distributions like the Linuxes are, they're separate OSes, with their own kernels, and their own userlands, the core systems are developed and maintained by the core team, not upstream, and integrated into the kernel/system as a result; although the core BSD systems include tools that are availible on Linux, they aren't the same tools, they're either written from scratch, or re-written entirely to integrate into the core system). There are performance and security considerations as well. Personally, I'd have liked to see them use FreeBSD, as Apple did, for the performance and scalability, but meh, OpenBSD is better than no BSD.

Anyway, the point is Microsoft already does this, and has been doing it for a very, very long time, and they'd never do it with Linux, or any other GPL'ed codebase for that matter.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[morcego]

Indeed, one has got to presume that in such an eventuality the lack of experience in the UNIX space would place MS at a disadvantage.

Microsoft has knowledge and experience with UNIX since the 70s. I know someone how works at MS at a lab that has mostly Unix computers (Linux included).

Trust me, the REALLY know Unix.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[Lorkki]

It is a microkernel design with isolated loadable plugin subsystems.

No, it's not. Microsoft themselves refer to it as a "hybrid kernel"; practically, it means it's a monolithic kernel that sort of looks somewhat like a microkernel if you squint and turn your head a little, but it still misses out on most of the relevant advantages of a real microkernel architecture. Most modern operating systems have kernels that support pluggable binary format and other kernel service modules, but the amount of marketing spin has more variety.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[stevey]

Indeed, and they work with Mainsoft for the Unix ports of some of their applications. (Not to mention Microsoft Xenix back in the day!)

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[daybot]

I am you insensitive clod!

That's why it was so funny!

Glad to see you can take a joke in good humour :)

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[Alioth]

Not only that, at least about a year ago when I last tried SFU, it was like being blasted back in time and using ISC UNIX in 1993 (and that was a horrible experience even back then). Cygwin is just miles better - it's unfortunate that the cygwin people can't make an NT subsystem, the interface being closed and propreitary.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[Anonymous Coward]

the thing that Apple provides that's really different and proprietary is the system libraries: Cocoa, Carbon, etc. These are the APIs that application writers code to for the Mac platform. Because of this, you can't just compile Darwin for your Intel machine and run Mac apps; the APIs are closed-source.

Cocoa is based on an Open Standard: OpenStep.

Trying to clone that would be an effort on the order of the WINE project;

There is a Free implementation that runs on Linux, BSD, other Unixes and even Windows.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[Alioth]

NT's security model is more granular than SElinux? How so?

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[Grishnakh]

Interesting. So is it possible to run a MacOSX application (even a simple one) (compiled for Intel of course) on an Intel/Linux machine using GNUstep? I couldn't find anything about that on the linked website.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[turgid]

No, it's API compatible at the source level. I have my own GNUstep build on my Slackware box, and on it, just because it can be done, I have Emacs on Aqua.

I don't actually "do" emacs, but I have my own home-made build system, and I put various things in it for toys to play with, including GNUstep and other interesting bits and pieces.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

[Shotgun]

You can turn-on-a-dime when you're a bull in a china shop. When you have Federal indictments for monopoly maintenance, you're in a bullpen all of a sudden. You can't just steal software using the underhanded tactics that Microsoft used against Spyglass.

They haven't proven agile at anything. Nothing they've ever shipped was worth looking at until the third version. They've simply been big enough to use monopoly power to buy out or block competition long enough to get their own mediocre solutions entrenched.

When comparing IBM and Microsoft, keep in mind that IBM is primarily a hardware company that has kept an ace-in-the-hole with their mainframe sales. They have a product that very few companies can supply. Microsoft has that .... but only as long as they can keep company data locked into their proprietary file formats.

Funny hearing BMC talk about open source

[Anonymous Coward]

We use their Service Desk Express software which REQUIRES Internet Explorer to work!

ARTICLE TEXT

[Anonymous Coward]

Next week I'm leading the "Open Source, the Web, Interoperability, and Microsoft" panel at Mix07 in Vegas, my first Microsoft conference. Naturally, I've been pondering the topic so I don't end up on stage with my pants around my ankles. The more I think about it, the more I think Microsoft loves open source--and not just because they're fools if they don't.

I know popular opinion has Microsoft cursing open source at every turn, but what do the facts indicate? Do they really despise something they clearly benefit from? I don't think so--the folks in Redmond aren't that short-sighted. In fact, I'll give you seven reasons I think Bill and Co. love open source:

They include open source code in their products.

Have you forgotten the first TCP/IP implementation in Windows? It was based on open source code that Windows XP still contains remnants of. Need proof? Point your favorite hex editor at ftp.exe. You'll find the 1983 copyright statement from the Regents of the University of California.

They support open source vendors.

MySQL, SugarCRM, Jboss, and many other open source development efforts benefit from Microsoft's support through programs created to test and verify open source applications on Microsoft platforms.

They benefit from open source everyday.

Two words: free press. Microsoft gets tons of press from their "battle" with open source. This month alone there are over 2000 articles related to "Microsoft and open source." Add countless blogs like mine, and the value of this free chatter goes through the roof.

They open source code.

No, not shared source. I'm referring to Microsoft's Unix tools for Windows; they provide the source code to most of these tools. Sure, we all wish they would do more, but we should acknowledge what they've done to date.

They are adopting open source culture.

The Mix conference is billed as a "72 hour conversation." Remind anyone of BarCamp? There are other examples: the Microsoft Community Blogs, Channel 9, CodePlex, etc. They're embracing openness.

They aren't threatened by open source.

Open source is not the threat; Linux is. Don't confuse the two. Open source is growing rapidly, but Linux has several distinguishing features that make it the real challenger. It's more mature than other projects, it has a larger, more organized developer base, and it's well financed. IBM has spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing, distributing, and advertising Linux, not open source. Microsoft doesn't fear open source; it fears what the competition can do with it.

They realize open source is their future.

Sure, Microsoft sometimes makes it easy for us to hate them, but aren't as disconnected from the pulse of the open source community as you may think. Linux is causing issues for them in the market, and they're working hard to keep up. They didn't build their empire by not planning ahead--even the most closed-minded executive in Redmond realizes open source is in their future.

You all know I'm no Microsoft lover. I'm looking to maximize my opportunity at Mix07. I've given you seven things they have done. Now, you give me seven you wish they'd do, and I'll address the panel with your feedback during our session. This way the conversation will be truly open to the community.

Re:ARTICLE TEXT

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been slashdotted that quickly?

Is this the right talk for him to give?

[NaCh0]

I think he'd be better qualified to speak on why BMC loves MSIE.

"loves" used very loosely

[neuro.slug]

Microsoft : open source :: Prisonmate Bubba : his bitches

Where I'm from, they have another word besides "love" for that.

Why microsoft really loves open source

[eclectro]

It makes it easier for them to get software patents.

Admitted

[Awksjaw]

FTA: "Open source is not the threat; Linux is."

Re:Admitted

[parvenu74]

That makes no sense. Microsoft primarily makes their money from Windows and Office; with Linux making progress toward a usable desktop and OpenOffice.org already at the state where it can replace MS Office for most tasks, what can Microsoft use to lock people onto their platform? IIS? There's Apache. MSSQL? There are MySQL and PostgeSQL. .NET? There is Mono and Java. There are two reasons why MS still exists: the huge amount of legacy code and applications that cannot run on any other systems, and the lack of corporate hand-holding for customers considering the jump to Linux (though this is rapidly changing). For companies that don't rely on legacy business applications, the ability to roll out Linux desktops to the bulk of their users can be done today. As the state of Linux apps business progress, there will be ever less reason for customers to play Microsoft's game.

Re:Admitted

[dhasenan]

It goes on to say that Linux is a threat because it's good (and presumably because it's a competing product). So open source is a threat when MS offers a similar product and the open source product is reasonably good.

How is open source not a threat to them again?

What's a whurly?

[spun]

Is it like a swirly? Oh, it's William Hurley. Of course. That non-famous guy I've never heard of before.

This synopsis annoys me because it is written as if we're all just supposed to know what the hell a whurly and a BMC are.

Re:What's a whurly?

[casings]

You should have assumed that, given that the submitter's name is 'tlockney' which stands for Thomas Lockney.

Afterall isn't first initial followed by last name a standard?

But who's whurley you ask?

Well here's a quick bio about why he is important:

William Hurley is the Chief Architect of Open Source Strategy at BMC Software, Inc. Also known as "whurley", he is responsible for creating BMC's open source agenda and overseeing the company's participation in various free and open source software communities to advance the adoption and integration of BSM solutions. A technology visionary and holder of 11 important patents, whurley brings 16 years of experience in developing groundbreaking technology. He is the Chairman of the Open Management Consortium, a non-profit organization advancing the adoption, development, and integration of open source systems management. Named an IBM Master Inventor, whurley has received numerous awards including an IBM Pervasive Computing Award and Apple Computer Design Award.

Anyway given this impressive resume and of course the fact that he works for a software company definitely gives him the ability to pull figures from his ass and present them as fact.

Troll on, whurley.

Re:What's a whurly?

[Stanistani]

Tags are useless, so I use them, like most SlashBorg, to amuse myself and the hive - so I tagged this article 'itsacrap' - a slight Italian accent, so to speak.

Re:What's a whurly?

[spun]

Oh God. He actually refers to himself as "whurly" in his bio? I just threw up a little in my mouth.

Re:What's a whurly?

[Joe Snipe]

Don't make me sow everyone your diary, steve pun.

Re:What's a whurly?

[spun]

Like you could get anyone to read my diary. My life is boring. ;-)

Anyways, you are all just going to have to wait for the movie if you want to know the really juicy bits. Like the time I took all my IWW union organizer friends to the pagan pan-sexual house. Oops! Darn my loose lips.

Re:What's a whurly?

[Macthorpe]

I thought that said pagan pan-sexual horse.

I should sleep more.

Duh

[derEikopf]

Free R&D.

Re:Duh

[AxminsterLeuven]

Does Ubuntu still come with a Free Nelson Mandela...
...movie?

No competition = stagnation

[dedazo]

Microsoft needs open source because established companies cannot compete with them in the "normal" market outside of the web (Google and Yahoo) where Microsoft has historically played catch-up. Open source levels the field, and so you have things like Firefox. Firefox forced Microsoft to come out of their "it's good enough and no one has a choice anyway" stagnation. The inevitable comparisons between Apache and IIS5 ended up resulting in IIS6. When Microsoft feels the pressure, they are a better company with better products.

Arguably this is not true for all their markets, such as development tools and Office, which historically have not been too contested (not lately at least) and yet have not resulted in the same stagnation.

Many people want open source to succeed, because one of the end results of that is a better Microsoft. I've always included myself in that group.

As for the article, I think it's a good read for all the "LOLOL M$ is TEH AFRAID OF THE GNU/PENGUIN ETC" crowd:

Microsoft doesn't fear open source; it fears what the competition can do with it.

Microsoft fears IBM and Novell and CA. It doesn't "fear" Ubuntu or Gentoo or Torvalds. That's the key issue that RMS managed to miss (or probably chose to ignore for the oomph effect) in his incisive analysis of the "Halloween documents".

Re:No competition = stagnation

[cyborg_zx]

Actually if there's anything to fear it's that mature product genres inevitably have lower value over time.

That is to say that now that OS technology is mature it just doesn't increase in value as much any more. So MS has a problem shifting its new OSes because the old OSes have enough value as they are. Same with Office products. Unfortunately for MS its business model requires that the value of its products does not lower over time - hence they are inevitably required to find ways of artificially increasing the value of their products by forcing upgrades, removing support and so forth.

Re:No competition = stagnation

[TubeSteak]

They realize open source is their future.
Sure, Microsoft sometimes makes it easy for us to hate them, but aren't as disconnected from the pulse of the open source community as you may think. Linux is causing issues for them in the market, and they're working hard to keep up. They didn't build their empire by not planning ahead--even the most closed-minded executive in Redmond realizes open source is in their future.

Notice how author of TFA doesn't bother to back up his assertion?

I would have though that reality backs up the opposite: MS doesn't want to open their code or specs.

Right now, they're giving the EU a tough time over specs,
I can't imagine how "They realize open source is their future".

Re:No competition = stagnation

[dkleinsc]

Wasn't that ESR's analysis of the Halloween documents, not RMS? Give credit where credit is due.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/

Re:No competition = stagnation

[drinkypoo]

Right now, they're giving the EU a tough time over specs, I can't imagine how "They realize open source is their future".

Then you are short on imagination. The simple answer is that barring legislation that cripples it, Open Source is the future, whether that is a future of Free Software or not.

The industry became closed because there was money to be made at it. But it is "trying" to reopen (in the same way that information "wants" to be free) because that is logical. Everything (except the fleecing of the consumer) works more smoothly when everything is Open and transparent.

Technology has made it possible for us to collaborate, and thus made the Free Software movement possible. And once begun this is nearly impossible to prevent. If they're not complete idiots over there at Microsoft, they will have realized this.

On the other hand, it is possible to maintain their stranglehold for a bit longer - even while slipping it will still be valuable.

The intelligent approach for them at this point is to prepare for the Open Source eventuality, while at the same time fighting to keep it delayed as long as possible.

Re:No competition = stagnation

[dedazo]

You're right, I meant "ESR", not RMS. Sorry about that.

Re:No competition = stagnation

[massysett]

Arguably this is not true for all their markets, such as development tools and Office, which historically have not been too contested (not lately at least) and yet have not resulted in the same stagnation.

Actually your first paragraph was right: MS doesn't innovate in ANY market where it doesn't face competition.

Office has not seen innovation in years, since it beat WordPerfect and 123. The innovation now is with other players, who are designing truly innovative interfaces (e.g. Google Calendar's quick appointment add feature, which whips Outlook's clunky forms) and enabling easy collaborative use. Adding some ribbons to Office is not innovation; it's the usual new paint job that comes with MS releases.

Development tools, too, are just responses to competition--.NET vs. Java.

Re:No competition = stagnation

[dedazo]

Office has not seen innovation in years

Yes, yes. And Windows has not changed since 1990, etc.

Re:No competition = stagnation

[dedazo]

I think Microsoft has realized that they probably won't be able to continue operating as before. An aphorism for that might be "they get open source", although it might not be the ultimate expression of the changes they need to undertake to continue being the dominant entity in the software market. At some point that will have to involve a hell of a lot more open behavior than we see today.

As far as the EU is concerned, they can go fuck themselves. However, the ridiculous protectionist dickfest they've organized (at the behest of RealNetworks among others) might in the end be the catalyst for those inevitable changes at Microsoft. Maybe in that sense it's not so bad.

Time will tell.

Re:No competition = stagnation

[perky]

You've seen Enterprise Library, right? And the Community content sections on MSDN? And Channel 9?

I think that the poster is treating "Open Source" as meaning Open business practices as well as literally open source code. These things are happening at MS.

Re:No competition = stagnation

[chthon]

The competition policy in Europe has nothing to do with protectionism. It is trying to make the European market open and transparent.

I do not know about other European countries, but when Karel Van Miert was commissioner (he is from Belgium), there where several cases of Belgium companies being punished.

Besides, most software companies profiting from breaking MS monopoly would be American ones. Europe does not really have a computer hardware industry, and I can on the top of my head only name SAP and Software AG as big European software companies (there used to be Baan to). For the rest, it is all relatively big companies either doing services or small compenies building extremely niche software.

Re:No competition = stagnation

[Sique]

Microsoft fears IBM and Novell and CA. It doesn't "fear" Ubuntu or Gentoo or Torvalds. That's the key issue that RMS managed to miss (or probably chose to ignore for the oomph effect) in his incisive analysis of the "Halloween documents". The same as you seem to constantly manage to miss the real issue RMS has. It's called "software obstructionism" and has nothing directly to do with Microsoft, even though he considers Microsoft als one of today's key proponents of said obstructionism.

RMS' issue came from 1984, when Unix Source Labs tried to renegotiate all UNIX software licenses. MIT and UCB put lots of work into UNIX and added many components to its software stock. But according to the license USL reserved the right to call those components "derivatives" and gained all distribution rights to them. Then it tried to sell MIT's own work (including RMS' own work) to MIT itself for money. And according to the licenses it had the right to do so.

So RMS envised a license that simply makes it impossible to pull a stunt like this: the GPL, which enforces the fact that software intended to be distributed for free stays free also in all its derivates, and started the GNU project whose main goal was to replace UNIX by a free alternative (That's probably why GNU stands for GNU's Not UNIX... it was designed to be a replacement for UNIX), starting by building a complete tool chain without using UNIX' original code.

loves?

[Anonymous Coward]

loves: reads, copies, uses, patents

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

It sure as hell DOES fear ODF, but I'll admit that some of that may be fear of IBM and Google, too.

Kill their lock-in on the office document software market, and customers can buy whatever they please... which probably won't be Word, especially for the more price conscious.

Anyhow, what's the worry? Ultimately, they fear losing business, and by extension, they fear anything that could free people from their lock-in strategies. I mean, if new games and new applications didn't need Vista, why would their customers need it, either?

WHAT?

[theolein]

That's like:
7 reasons a mouse likes a cat
7 reasons why oil likes water
7 reasons why intelligent design likes pasta
or
7 reasons why office users like clippy

Re:WHAT?

[jawtheshark]

7 reasons why intelligent design likes pasta

I do not think that many ID people are familiar with the Flying Spaghetti Monster... Ignorant as they are.

ALL HAIL THE FLYNG SPAGHETTI MONSTER!

Hopelessly naive

[Keith Russell]

Open source is not the threat; Linux is.

Um, no. Both are threats to Microsoft. Linux, as a product, is obvious.

Open source, as a larger concept, is a threat to Microsoft because it is the antithesis of their power base. Microsoft has gained and held its control over the industry by clutching tightly its file formats and protocols. The only reason we ever got Office compatibility and the SMB protocol in the Open Source realm is because of careful reverse engineering and the hope that Microsoft's patent lawyers would keep their guns holstered.

I think Microsoft is realizing that the problem isn't the source, which is eroding as a base of power, but the software patents. On the one hand, they hold enough to crush pretty much anybody they choose. At the same time, they've already been victimized once by Eolas. The Novell deal shows how reluctant Microsoft is to really enforce their software patents. It's as much a defensive action for Microsoft as it is for Novell. Obviously, Novell can step out from under that Sword of Damocles. Microsoft, however, by not filing a straight-up patent suit, avoids throwing the first punch in a barroom full of patent trolls, all of whom are itching for a brawl.

Heh...

[Otter]

I like this new form of journalism being pioneered here: "X is going to be speaking at some event and I will now hold forth on some completely random topic that might come up!" One of the more vigorous submitters then follows it up with "X spoke at some meeting and I will now hold forth on some completely random topic that didn't come up!"

Loves?

[UninvitedCompany]

The blog article is weak on a number of important points. Open source is part of the landscape and Microsoft is adapting to it. That does not mean that Microsoft "loves" open source. Microsoft could probably be said to "love" any vertical-market application that adds value to the platforms that it offers. It matters not a jot whether said applications are open-source or closed-source.

OpenOffice poses more of a long-term threat to Microsoft than Linux, because Microsoft's revenue stream for Office is less subject to margin erosion than its operating system revenues. Firefox also poses a threat insofar as a common browser platform that is OS independent undermines control of the desktop. Windows and IE provide control of the market, while Exchange and Office provide the revenue. Competition on any of the four fronts is taken seriously.

Linux not the threat; the GNU GPL is

[Anonymous Coward]

Were the kernel Linux licensed under the BSD license, MS wouldn't consider Linux a threat. It's because of the *license* that the kernel Linux has that Microsoft is scared silly of it. That goes for anything else that's released under the GPL--Samba, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla/Firefox, KDE, *anything*. Why? Because they can't just lift GPL code without providing source. That's why their Services for UNIX is based on BSD, not GNU/Linux. It's also why Apple used a lot of FreeBSD code for the core of Mac OS X (the non-GUI parts).

Microsoft has made it clear, many times, that they consider the GPL a "cancer" and "Communist". They've also said that "we're not against 'open source'. We like BSD, that's fine. What we don't like is the GPL."

The GPL is their enemy because the GPL proactively defends our freedom. Is the BSD license a Free Software license? You bet! But it doesn't proactively defend our freedom like the GPL does, and it is that characteristic of the GPL that frightens Microsoft to its core. That's also why they're fighting so desperately against the OpenDocument file formats; to Microsoft, actual, true Freedom for users is a very, very scary thing.

Re:Linux not the threat; the GNU GPL is

[jabskeeterbug]

The GPL is their enemy because the GPL proactively defends our freedom. Is the BSD license a Free Software license? You bet! But it doesn't proactively defend our freedom like the GPL does, and it is that characteristic of the GPL that frightens Microsoft to its core. That's also why they're fighting so desperately against the OpenDocument file formats; to Microsoft, actual, true Freedom for users is a very, very scary thing. Microsoft is a technology provider. Why would they want to give out their source code as GPL and *force* their end users to open their program as well? The GPL is great for some things, but if you are giving your code to paying customers, let them do what they want with it. This "defend our freedom" sounds like a bunch of bullshit. Viewing sourcode isn't a freedom.

Re:Linux not the threat; the GNU GPL is

[pnaro]

Ummm, both Microsoft and Apple have a long history with BSD-derived works, even before Linux and GPL was around.

As far as Apple's use of "a lot of FreeBSD code", no shit, sherlock! The MacOS X roots date back (through NeXT) to the mid-late 80s. Their whole underlying structure has always been BSD.

Re:Linux not the threat; the GNU GPL is

[h4rr4r]

Viewing and reusing source code is the fundamental freedom that (GPL)open source is based on. The issue is Microsoft does not even give the code under any reasonable license to anyone. Heck, if they BSD licensed XP I would shut up right now. They fear the GPL because it is code they cannot use without opening their own code up. They fear what the GPL stands for, enforcement of open source, insured freedom.

Re:Linux not the threat; the GNU GPL is

[cyborg_zx]

The GPL is great for some things, but if you are giving your code to paying customers, let them do what they want with it.

Hmm... do you take the same stance with the binaries?

I don't know what magic the source code has that means that if you are selling source rather than a binary that you would have to let your customers do whatever they like with it. Would you please explain?

This "defend our freedom" sounds like a bunch of bullshit. Viewing sourcode isn't a freedom.

Ugh. It's not about viewing the source code, it's about controlling what you can do with it. The GPL defends the freedom of the source code by requiring that derivatives are also free in the same manner. It's that simple.

Re:Linux not the threat; the GNU GPL is

[Anonymous Coward]

Your emphasis on fear is amusing. While I agree that MS dislikes GPL, I disagree that they fear it. It's like how I dislike mushrooms, but I don't fear them. I simply don't eat anything with mushrooms in them, and go on living my life as usual.

Re:Linux not the threat; the GNU GPL is

[mandelbr0t]

They certainly don't have to. But if Microsoft insists on keeping their code secret at all costs, there will come a point when there is GPL code available to compete with absolutely everything that Microsoft produces. Heck, we're almost there already: OS, Office suite, Web browser, Mail client, development environment, games (for those that don't need the latest FPS from Megacorp, anyway).

That is the future that Microsoft wants to avoid at all costs; it will make the price of software as a commodity become $0. At some point, Microsoft will need to sell their software at $0 just to compete, which means that the IT industry becomes a service industry rather than manufacturing. That's a good thing for everyone (well, OK, maybe just me). Losses due to piracy become non-existant, since piracy is no longer a useful concept. Talented people will be paid to implement solutions, Microsoft or otherwise.

The best thing Microsoft can do is what Sun Microsystems already did: experiment with Community Source Licensing. No, we won't be able to do whatever we want with Windows source code, but we'll be able to mess around with it in our labs/basements/whatever and understand Windows better. They don't even have to accept changes from the community if they don't want, and they can keep the distribution rights to themselves.

Ultimately, it's a show of faith on Microsoft's part. They may believe they don't need to start playing nice with FSF supporters anytime soon, but I certainly don't think they have quite that luxury. FSF always had and will always have the potential of producing a whole bunch of software that's truly Free and in doing so take those "innovations" away from Microsoft. Microsoft needs to interoperate. The fastest way to do so is to show us their source code.

Re:Linux not the threat; the GNU GPL is

[Prien715]

Heck, we're almost there already: OS, Office suite, Web browser, Mail client, development environment, games (for those that don't need the latest FPS from Megacorp, anyway).

Logic like this reminds me of people who promote Christian music over "secular" music. "You like Led Zeppelin? Well you shouldn't listen to them, there's satanic references in their music. Creed is almost as good, and they're Christian!".

Some of us prefer quality over ideology; I love FireFox, but I'll play Civ4/Starcraft over FreeCiv/Freecraft (whatever the WC2 clone is) any day. When people do something for its own sake, that's usually when it turns out best.

Re:Linux not the threat; the GNU GPL is

[mandelbr0t]

Errrr. I play Civ4 on Linux. What seems to be the problem?

Re:Linux not the threat; the GNU GPL is

[Bodrius]

Is Civ4 open source?

Re:Linux not the threat; the GNU GPL is

[McDutchie]

Viewing sourcode isn't a freedom.

Yes, it is. In fact, the freedom to study and change the source code is the most fundamental freedom in Free software. If you don't have the source code and can't get access to it, the program is as good as proprietary.

Re:Linux not the threat; the GNU GPL is

[trifish]

The GPL is their enemy because the GPL proactively defends our freedom.

You mean the freedom to choose a different license for other portions of the program that uses portions of the original code?

One reason why it's all a lie

[Locutus]

Loss of Control! It's rather simple, it's about the loss of control because without the ability to control the APIs which are getting used most often on Windows, they lose control of the platform. Why did Microsoft go totally 180 out on how they used the Java under license from Sun Micro? What about why they were willing to purchase expensive Netscape contracts and also pay ISPs to push MS IE over Netscape Navigator? Remember, Netscape Navigator included CORBA components, Java, and JavaScript among other technologies out of Microsofts control. It's all about keeping control of the APIs, the developers, and therefore protecting the Microsoft Windows economy.

So there are no reasons why Microsoft Loves open source other than to find ways to "Love it to death". IMO.

LoB

Love?

[rolfwind]

Like in the bend-it-over kind of way?

I disagree

[pembo13]

They include open source code in their products.

All that safely implies is that they like free/already implemented stuff, and we already knew that

They support open source vendors.

This is the first I'm hearing of this

They benefit from open source everyday.

This sounds more like hip-hop that the tech. industry

They open source code

This is a consequence, not the intention

They are adopting open source culture.

I think this is stretching things really

They aren't threatened by open source.

This seems more like a pun than anything else, but ok, I'll give them that

They realize open source is their future.

I do not see any evidence for this

Re:I disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft needs someone to steal from, this is why they want open source. They cannot innovate worth a squat. It's obvious. Would c# and .net exist without java? Explorer was pretty stagnant even though there was a huge mess of viruses exploiting their crappy security until FireFox came around. I think Microsoft was pretty content to just keep releasing VS c/c++ updates to the next c/c++ releases (with a decent GUI) till java came around. and when they realized java was doing a decent (not great) job showing that it's possible to run an app on both unix and windows, they work up, tried to hijack java, and when Sun stopped them, decided to steal the best ideas of java and create c#. They do realize open source is the future, but only to steal the best ideas from it, port it to their environment, and release it as the next big thing (and forcing M$ developers to buy yet the next VisualStudio version (and also make supporting old apps even harder, again forcing them to upgrade). VB, asp, COM obsoleted and replaced with vb.net/aspx/.net and with poor upgrade capability. Interoperability with other non-M$ tools? I hate that, when opening a solution, that it wants to keep checking out the sln and web.config files just to open them, even if I have no intention of modifying them. I can kinda understand web.config, but why sln files? And this is probably to get developers away from real version control tools and move into their crappy VisualSourceSafe (and it's successor)...

Open Source, the Web, Interoperability, and Micros

[Asztal_]

Guess the odd one out?

I know..

[Anonymous Coward]

Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers!

[I would have left it at that if the compression filer didn't kick in, so I added this line.]

Reason Eight

[kinglink]

Because people spend their time working on open source instead of the product to beat Microsoft. So Steve Jobs the second comes along today. He's going to make an OS that's going to destroy Windows. He looks for his best coder. However coders don't need a Steve Jobs to make software anymore. They can just work on Linux to get their coding fix. They don't need a guy with a vision because they have Linux Torvalds to follow and continue to lead them.

Let's face it, Linux is not going to destroy Windows, there's too many issues with it. People have already seen Linux and made their opinions then. We can change them but it's an uphill battle. The in fighting, the "hard core linux guys" vs. the Red hats vs. the Slackware vs. everyone else has ruined what little chance Linux has. The very fact that if Linux takes over, it won't be one version but every version and it will all create work for the end user means it's going to be problematic for it to even gain market share.

Open source diverts and directs a lot of time for the people who could take on Microsoft's products and that makes Microsoft happy. In theory it COULD make for a better product because everyone can be working towards one goal. But in reality every programmer has an opinion on how best to go about the assault on the big MS and with out true leadership (Torvalds isn't looking to lead the revolution, Stallman is but he's as polarizing as can be, hell Stallman will scare most corporations back to Microsoft's loving arms with his free software talk.) Even the term open source scares businesses and executives. It's a good thing after you understand it but there's a lot of parts of it that Microsoft can whisper in people's ears to scare them into using the Microsoft alternative.

So Microsoft loves the fact open source is here because if anything it's destroyed more genius ideas than they could probably fight on their own in a number of ways.

Re:Reason Eight

[wellingj]

it will all create work for the end user

And spyware and malware don't already create more work? For the average person who doesn't
know jack about computers (my mom) Linux is the best thing they can use. And have you installed
a distro lately? It's pretty easy and quick. This just isn't an argument any more...
The real reason Linux is slow to adopt is because the people like Dell and HP haven't advertised it yet.
They only dip their toe and then get scared of the water.

Even the term open source scares businesses and executives.It's a good thing
after you understand it but there's a lot of parts of it that Microsoft can whisper in
people's ears to scare them into using the Microsoft alternative.

Stupid is as stupid does. Why would you trust a company that wants nothing but your money?

if anything it's destroyed more genius ideas

Yes but the ideas are now out there. And Microsoft can't use them to make money.
They hate that because they are the biggest patent troll of them all.

Re:Reason Eight

[rampant mac]

"They don't need a guy with a vision because they have Linux Torvalds to follow and continue to lead them."

Uh.... ?

I think Linux is where it is, because it has a vision (a free software philosphy) only because Linus has chosen to lead Linux towards that path. I guess I'm confused by the above observation.

Re:Reason Eight

[bonefry]

So basically you're saying that because of open source there is a shortage of developers ?
hahahahahahaha

Nice one.

Re:Reason Eight

[Kjella]

The very fact that if Linux takes over, it won't be one version but every version and it will all create work for the end user means it's going to be problematic for it to even gain market share.

But there hasn't really been many forks where distros create their own thing. Sure distros like Red Hat and Ubuntu invent end-user tools, but either it'll get accepted upstream or they will keep patching the latest Gnome/KDE/whatever release.

The differences between distros are in the long term relatively small. There's been no sign of fracture like tne Open-/Free-/NetBSDs. Sure distros come and go, but if I was to compare my current Linux experience to my experience two, four and six years ago, it's 90% common and 10% distro-specific.

For all I know a ton of that common progress was made by one specific distro pushing it in one direction or the other, but I'm talking about the end-all result. Also, it's hardly as fractured as you make it out. When Red Hat Linux was still around it was "the" distro to have, now Ubuntu is "the" distro to have, a few more like mandrake, suse, fedora are playing second fiddle but there's not more than a handful of real competitiors for the general purpose desktop.

As for "leaders", we don't need an RMS-style leader. Linux leads the kernel development. There's every bit of opportunity to take charge and bring the application of your choice to excellece. Wanna make GIMP a Photoshop-killer? Knock yourself out. Wanna make KDE a desktop that makes OS X hide in shame? Go for it. I think we need more leaders like Linux, that isn't after blood. He wants to make Linux the best damn kernel he can. If a hundred leaders of a hundred applications rose to the occasion and realized their vision, the "war" would attend to itself.

Re:Reason Eight

[petrus4]

I think we need more leaders like Linux, that isn't after blood. He wants to make Linux the best damn kernel he can. If a hundred leaders of a hundred applications rose to the occasion and realized their vision, the "war" would attend to itself.

I really wish more people thought like you. :)

Re:Reason Eight

[danpsmith]

Let's face it, Linux is not going to destroy Windows, there's too many issues with it. People have already seen Linux and made their opinions then. We can change them but it's an uphill battle. The in fighting, the "hard core linux guys" vs. the Red hats vs. the Slackware vs. everyone else has ruined what little chance Linux has. The very fact that if Linux takes over, it won't be one version but every version and it will all create work for the end user means it's going to be problematic for it to even gain market share.

Let's face it, if Linux *did* destroy Windows, you guys would all have something to say about that too. It's the never happy thing. The world would be better with Linux, people say now. But as soon as Grandma and Grandpa are using Linux and the malware starts getting made, original Linux users will be flustered.

Why do we care, as supporters of this movement if Linux does take over Windows position as the number one player? Is it just for more hardware support? What exactly is this need for open source to overtake Windows? I understand that you want freedom and choice, congratulations, Linux solved that problem years ago.

The important part isn't that Linux take over the Windows monopoly to me. To me the important part is that Linux *exists*, the important part is that there *is* an alternative to a Windows desktop. OSS's existence is more important to me than how many users it has, quite honestly. If enough software gets developed that's quality, it WILL pull users. Empires rise and fall, but why care? Linux is built to outlive empires. It's the peoples' movement of software, if there ever was such a thing. Just the fact that it exists lets us know that we don't ever have to be shackled with the MS chains ever again.

Instead of worrying about Linux overtaking MS, how about just use Linux, enjoy the freedom. Don't look down on others because they made an "incorrect" decision to use Windows. They, most of the time, didn't make a decision. Stop worrying so much about Windows and in time it will fade under its own steam. You can hate the king of the hill, but if you don't have a plan to replace him and you spend all your energy trying to cut his throat, you'll just end up with a worse king at the end of it.

People look at Apple as an example for hating Microsoft, but they have more lockin than MS, at least MS isn't trying to make you use their specific computers again like it was in the old days. At least MS is just selling software for grey boxes. Apple is the champion of DRM and stuff. Knocking MS off the hill isn't important. Keeping Linux going is. It's a precious movement, and it's self-sustaining. As long as OSS has all the talent, who cares who wins the software "battle," the people win either way.

Re:Reason Eight

[kinglink]

My point is more that they only have one guy with a vision, and he's not type to try to take on Microsoft. (Well two if you count RMS, who is just over aggressive).

The other side of it is I was showing Linux is not the answer to overtaking Windows, at least not the Linux of 2007. It's diversity and other attributes bred out of Open sourcing is hurting it as much as helping (we like these things where we choose which Linux distro we want, however the home users will not.)

He's right about one thing...

[Mockylock]

MS isn't afraid of Open Source, rather than linux. Open source linux will never have the support needed to support a mass quantity such as windows. The reason being, Support costs money.. marketing costs money.. and Open Source linux really can't handle that. In order to support issues and have a central system for drivers, updates and such... you've got to have some type of unity, income and government.

The open source community has a hard time deciding on factors, due to no central foundation for on time decisions. It's tons of different people acting for their own reasons to get their box to work correctly. Drivers aren't made because they need to be made, just yet. Not everyone is required to make drivers for their products or make their product compatible with linux, because it seldomly affects business.

I'm not saying that linux isn't going to jump ahead at any point, I'm saying that Open Source linux will never have the power to, when it hasn't got the funds to do so.

The one thing he didn't mention is, Microsoft has borrowed (I know, people have other words for it.) technologies and ideas from OS's and apps across the globe. They already have a unix subsystem that's been in place for years as an addition. What makes anyone think that one of the richest technological businesses on the planet, WOULDN'T create their own Linux-Based operating system if they came close to being overturned?

Think about it.

They have the funds in place. They have the support. Linux has always been harsh competition and has proven it's worthy.

WHY would they not do it?

You can't tell me that somewhere in a basement in Redmond, men aren't typing away with unix code, creating a small OS that is the beginning of a back-up plan for MS when fit hits the shan.

THAT is why they're not concerned. It's not just because it's a huge threat.. it's because at any time, they can write up their own flavor of linux like anyone else does.. and they've got the money to support it.

Re:He's right about one thing...

[dhasenan]

You're conflating technology with support. I don't need Linus Torvalds to own a Linux support company; I can purchase my support from Canonical or Red Hat or Novell or dozens of others.

If Linux will succeed on the popular desktop, then it will come preinstalled. It will come with manufacturer support -- or the manufacturer will have a support contract with another agency. And that won't be much cheaper than OEM Windows. (So incidentally, Linux only has a price advantage for people who can forgo support.)

Re:He's right about one thing...

[quahaug]

If they had the ability to release an OS equal or near equal quality of a UNIX like system compared to Linux they would have already done so. They would not have released that peice of turd called Vista. It all goes back to the days of QDOS.

Re:He's right about one thing...

[Mockylock]

They have no reason to move from their current source code, because it's still making them money and there are few threats. Besides, when they started Longhorn quite a long time ago, linux wasn't even as strong as it is today.

Re:He's right about one thing...

[Mockylock]

It does... I'm not arguing that at all. I'm not arguing that linux has MUCH more room for growth and at the rate it is going, it will expand like wildfire. I don't in any way doubt that it's a simply incredible system, and it's very small amount of shortcomings will be sorted out within 2-3 years.

But, one can't argue that Microsoft will have cashed in on their own version when that day comes. There's really a good chance of it, if you think about it.

The only thing that would really crush Microsoft in the OS standpoint would be Macintosh releasing their system to the public, which I see happening soon. With 2 technically superior counterparts against them, Microsoft will be in a "If you can't beat them, join them" type of deal. They're TOO rich and successful at what they do, to be oblivious to their options. They're just not pushed back into the corner right now and they're still cashing in on ancient code.

Then they won't mind this...

[Cyko_01]

If they love open source so much then I'm sure they didn't mind THIS at all! *sarcasm*

7 reasons Microsoft loves Open Source - RTFA

[commodoresloat]

It's a cookbook!!

Re:7 reasons Microsoft loves Open Source - RTFA

[cmacb]

*Waiting for modders to get the joke*

Maybe they need a hint?

Catagorized List:

[crhylove]

1. We can steal code!
2. We can steal ideas!
3. We can steal design!
4. We can release a version that doesn't turn off noobies!
5. We can make a proprietary competitor and wipe the original FOSS off the map with our hegemony!
6. We can put out a press release about how we invented something again!
7. We can steal code!

Yes, but on the other hand...

[Nybble's Byte]

Does the open source community like Microsoft?

Silly question. Next.

Worded differently

[Daath]

"Embrace and Extend"

I hate when they do that.

Re:Worded differently

[sortius_nod]

ahem - "Entrench & Exploit"

the real 7 reasons

[bl8n8r]

1) free code
2) free development
3) innovation with low overhead
4) goals of stability to achieve
5) something to get baldy charged up before keynotes
6) hackers to blame
7) Novel^H^H^H Back-stabbing CEOs that will sign patent agreements

Ruined?

[msimm]

Hardly. I don't even sweat the in-fighting anymore. No-one cares really (aside from us). Right now as far as I'm concerned Linux isn't really even on the radar. Not really. People have heard of it, maybe.

That's the cool thing. We've needed the push and I'm sure in some ways that's what's making it OK for distro's like Ubuntu to include non-free software and changes without being widely panned but the community.

I don't agree that open source is taking away from anything. Linux (my favorite example) has grown quite dramatically and does quite well in my particular field (servers). Support is coming along with most major vendors providing acceptable support (Intel/Sun/Dell/HP).

I realize servers aren't as sexy as the desktop solution you're talking about, but its a clear example of Linux continuing to grow and mature. Even it its a little slower then you and a lot of people might like. Do we need a Steve Jobs? Probably not. But I think the process is still going to be slow as distros become increasingly clear in their ability to differentiate themselves and diverge from the safety and homogeny of "accepted" Unix/Linux practices. An expense and risk I don't think anyone anyone is ready or willing to take on just yet.

My comment refuting his points

[silicon not in the v]

I posted a comment there on his page, refuting his arguments. It wasn't too hard to rationally shoot most of them down. I was able to refute 6 of 7, but one of them I just wasn't familiar enough with. Here's the comment if you're interested:
----------------

I can't take you very seriously because there is a lot of misdirection and hand-waving in your article. I will give you credit that I didn't see any outright lies, which Microsoft directly uses, though. Here I'll point out some problems with your points.

"They include open source code in their products."
You bring up the TCP/IP implementation as an example. That's not a good idea on your part because it's exactly the example people use to point out why Microsoft likes to let other people come up with good stuff under the BSD license and then selfishly take it with no thank-yous or giving in return. When it comes to a mutual sharing license that they can't take selfish advantage of, like the GPL, they spit venom, lies, quasi-legal lobbying interference with government action, violation of their court-ordered code of conduct from their anti-trust conviction, etc., etc. So basically, your first point illustrates that they just like code that other people open without restrictions so they can just snatch it.

"They support open source vendors."
I won't say a lot here because I'm not familiar with these Microsoft "programs created to test and verify open source applications on Microsoft platforms". If they do that, fair enough.

"They benefit from open source everyday."
It's called FUD. Have you read the content of the "free press" they pay for? That's kind of a twisted way to look at things to say that your competitors benefit you by giving you the opportunity to smear them with falsehoods. You're not understanding what the alternative situation was to this "battle with open source" they've been waging in the press. Before open source was maturing, Microsoft didn't have a big war in the press and had close to 100% market share. Everyone just kept buying it because they had never heard of anything else. Now Microsoft is having to viciously attack to slow the slide of their market share. Open source isn't doing them any favors there.

"They open source code."
Ah, UNIX tools for Windows. This is beating the ground where the dead horse rotted away several years ago. They did a small token action on a minor product most people don't use once, and we're supposed to be reminded of that over and over? That hardly seems like strong evidence to make it one of the "Seven Reasons Microsoft Loves Open Source". That's weak, man.

"They are adopting open source culture."
You're not recognizing what this is. Culture means actually doing something, which they're not. This is co-opting the language of open source to try to pretend to be something good, while remaining the wolf in sheep's clothing. It's the same with their proprietary data-dump of their new MS Office format, which they have ironically called "Microsoft Office Open XML". They want to have that word Open associated with them, even though the format is very closed and does not contain specs enough for anyone else to use it.

"They aren't threatened by open source."
Well this looks like a good place to continue the talk about the office document formats. They are threatened at least as much, if not more, by other forms of openness than just by Linux. Have you kept up with Microsoft's conduct in Massachusetts over the document format decision? They have been putting out some of their most blatant lies to convince them to use the Microsoft document formats, rather than go to a neutral document format that can be used by anyone, including Microsoft if they wanted to stop their tantrums long enough to do it. Read some of Andy Updegrove's blog to find out some of the story about that, including how they fed a false character assasination story on Peter Quinn to Boston Globe reporter Steve Kurkjian. The story was published before they even

Re:My comment refuting his points

[petrus4]

That's not a good idea on your part because it's exactly the example people use to point out why Microsoft likes to let other people come up with good stuff under the BSD license and then selfishly take it with no thank-yous or giving in return.

The predatory stuff they've done is bad, yes...but unlike the GPL, the BSD license doesn't enforce reciprocity, so they haven't done anything in violation of the license by not getting involved in the development of that.

I am deeply tired of the attitude found primarily among advocates of the GPL which constantly focuses on what other people are doing, or should be doing, rather than focusing on their own back yard. It is smug, arrogant, and dictatorial.

The other thing about it which is even more sickening in most cases is the fact that the only reason why you think like that is because you've been brainwashed to do so by the FSF, not because you're actually engaging your own mind at all.

You're a good, faithful little drone.

NT POSIX memories.

[EmbeddedJanitor]

As the parent says the NT POSIX was severely sucky.

In the NT3 timeframe (approx 12 years ago now), there was a big effort to sell NT to companies, such as the one I worked for then, supplying back office /server room style products. Many/most products of the time were running on Unix boxes or similar. We were using Unix x86 boxes (SCO etc) for compter tephony applications. NT had to check a few boxes to encourage people to switch: POSIX and streams driver support. This gave people a reasonable porting avenue to a cheaper OS (NT was about half or a third of SCO's cost at the time).

The POSIX and streams drivers were very inefficient, and were dropped within a short while (once the bait and switch had worked).

This ploy was very clever on MS's part. Using ourselves as a benchmark for people in this space, our customers were putting on some pressure to provide NT based products because they were eating the MS blurb and wanted to reduce costs. Our techies looked at NT and figured out what would be needed to port: POSIX-check, streams driver model - check. So we say that on paper it can be done with trivial architectural change. Marketing start hyping the NT-based offering. The business people say make it so, so we do. Unfortunately we find the POSIX and streams driver model are very slow on NT, so end up having to start doing native drivers and non-POSIX code. We start slipping, marketing starts screaming and the portability gets dumped in favour of getting shipping. The bait and switch has worked.

We never got any benefit from NT POSIX or the MS streams driver. Our systems went from requiring low-end (16-25MHz) 386s to 100+MHz 486. Basically a very bad case of bait and switch.

"Love"? GMAB. A Naive List...

[zunipus]

To use the term 'Love' here is incredibly naive. MS would obviously 'love' to destroy Open Source by any means possible. They only become involved with it when forced, when they can make a buck off it, or when it saves them time and effort. There isn't the remotest attitude of benevolence. This guy may well be laughed off the stage.

But enough from me. Be sure to read the comments below the article on the source page. They are very insightful and diverse.

Beat me to it...

[mattgreen]

And citing roughlydrafted is better? Sorry, couldn't resist.

What, how can you not take a site that has poorly photoshopped heads of corporate executives onto movie posters seriously?! That is the epitome of credibility! Besides, it even has pretty pie charts and sound bites in the articles. Which is good, because I feel very informed when I read it. It is fair and balanced, that's what. Anyway, I'm off to find some more anti-Apple bias in the media!

"Open Source, the Web, Interoperability, and ..."

[stimpy77]

'Open Source, the Web, Interoperability, and Microsoft' Also AKA "The Brave, the Astounding, the Incredibly Useful, and The Scorned"

y * a * w * n

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care whether Microsoft loves or hates open source. I have no advice for Microsoft on how they could become relevant to me. Microsoft gets no money directly from me because they have none of my attention. I have no interest in using any Microsoft software, aside from its obligatory presence on my employer-provided PC. Microsoft is there and they are large, but they are past their zenith. The lack of energy in TFA is proof that Microsoft will ever so slowly and gradually shrivel up and die. Watching Microsoft whither away will be about as exciting as watching a lawn turn brown from lack of water - pure 2nd law of thermodynamics - entropy death. Microsoft no longer knows how to create and market anything remotely resembling leading edge tech. Heck, even Sun has made Solaris seem much more exciting than anything coming out of Redmond.

Not too quick here

[Anonymous Coward]

"Add countless blogs like mine, and the value of this free chatter goes through the roof."

That assumes that those blogs are considered valuable.

Just sayin'.

Geek Wannabes

[Sloppy]

Ok please, naming your convention after Knuth's fictitious assembly language? How dorky can you get? Whaddya bet there's just a bunch of C# programmers there, who don't even know how their computer works?

ehh

[f1055man]

MS is large enough to love open source and try to crush it. Any one MS employee might be believed to hold this position, but as an amoral corporation MS should be trusted just as far as it can be thrown (and no, that makes no sense at all).

Re:ehh

[fuckingsound]

An MS intern in 2005 told me that during the new employee orientation there was a segment on stopping the open source movement and why it's end was key to microsoft's future success. But as that has been two years of chewing the fat, I'd be willing to bet that it's no longer on the itinerary, or at least less broadcasted at the employee frequency.

Why I like Open Source...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, how I so love the GPL and related share-alike licenses... Basically, I like it because it is usually free (as in free money as well as of course freedom), whereas most of the Microsoft/Adobe applications are not free. If I had money, I'd certainly buy the propietary stuff like Microsoft Office or Dreamweaver, but I don't and stick with OpenOffice.org and N|vu. Heck, I may even surport the paid version of Open Source items (For example, I'm a big fan of DnD v3.5 and started because of the SRD) So while I am relatively okay with "M$," I can't deny that I don't love the free stuff and freedom that the GNU Public License gets me!

Not a win situation..

[Junta]

Definitely a lose situation for MS. What does MS have to offer other than application lock-in for their platform? The answer is they simply do not. The value of a *nix core with MS-designed UI on top is simply non-existant in this day and age. MS hasn't done anything fundamentally interesting in the last decade with respect to drastic UI enhancements. The Unix desktops for the most part reproduce every benefit MS historically offered and in some cases one-upped them. Linux Distros have some of the best package management facilities around, and come with all the fundamental bells and whistles to get common people going. In general because they've worked so hard, recent linux distribution releases are as easy (in many cases easier than) as a Windows install. You go to a little application browser and you just type keywords and you have installable applications. Pop in removable media and all the details of mounting it with appropriate privilege and showing it as a usable device on the desktop is done. Plug in a number of devices and they just start working, no dialogs to navigate, no drivers need be downloaded. The application menus are much cleaner and nicely organized than the Windows Start menu, it's generally not too hard for someone to do things. The bad part is lack of good third-party commercial software (including games), and that advantage keeps MS on top for a lot of market segments, and giving that up would be suicide.

Sure, MS could probably do a decent Wine-like layer to get a bunch of supported applications working better than anything else, but in such a market the now 'non-native' versions are running, for all intents and purposes, in a 'legacy' layer. If their value add as a company would be mainly providing support for 'legacy' apps today, 10 years from now they'll be in trouble, compared to their current position.

Sure, they can also sell their Office suite (and other software) to more people if linux is supported, but I don't think it would offset the significant losses they would suffer enabling a competing platform. MS gets tons of money from third-party software developers addressing market segments MS is unable or uninterested in pursuing. Those developers as it stands today pretty much has to give MS money to release a product and reach a sizable customer base.

It's not to say they've made questionable business decisions in the quest for dominance, but a company with a realistic chance to achieve a monopoly in a situation where they really aren't punished for it has a lot to gain by being that monopoly. As it stands today they have nearly total freedom with respect to their margins, and short term skipped opportunity, financially speaking, was worth it to them for the end game.

threats

[hachete]

Microsoft see OSS as a threat: that's their problem, not ours. OSS has never been - and never should be - in the business to compete with anyone. OSS is here to produce better software. Period. If distributions like RedHat or IBM want to go toe-to-toe against MS, that's their problem.

Really, any press release or fluff from OSS collaborators should be ignored. Any OS release should be examined for goodness - copied - then ignored. Any attempts to say that OSS is here to "wipe-out" MS should be ignored. OSS can never do that. Those people who whinge about OSS *not* competing with word, access, oh, get a life.

free press?

[Anivair]

Free Press? Are you joking me?

What the hell kind of free press does MS need? Anyone out there not using windows because they've never heard of it? What a really dumb thing to say. Free press does you no good if you're the market default.

This is why techies don't run businesses.

[Bigmilt8]

Everyone stop, breathe, and let's look at it. I allow someone else to think of a possibly good idea and begin to build the model. I can look at the idea, refine or change it as I want to. Then I can integrate it into my strategy. EVERY large technology and scientific company in America (and actually the world) does this. How do you think the drug and biotech companies work. The only thing MSFT did was get smart about open source. If you can possibly profit off something, then why fight it. Technology is great but BUSINESS turns the world. One more thing, to people in technology, open source is "Free". To the CEO at a company that sells (insert product here) it is not. I sell my product and don't really care about developing the next driver or what have you.

insert anti-GPL FUD here ..

[rs232]

'The predatory stuff they've done is bad, yes...but unlike the GPL, the BSD license doesn't enforce reciprocity, so they haven't done anything in violation of the license by not getting involved in the development of that'

The GPL doesn't enforce anything, if you sell on an app with GPL code then you must include your own source code, else use the lesser GPL. You are not compelled to sell it on. The GPL prevents some company taking code and locking it up in some commercial product, like Windows for instance.

'I am deeply tired of the attitude found primarily among advocates of the GPL which constantly focuses on what other people are doing, or should be doing, rather than focusing on their own back yard. It is smug, arrogant, and dictatorial'

What attitude, and please don't assume you are an authority on GPL advocates or even know what they think. The only think I see GPL advocactes responding to FUD like 'our IP is in Linux' and so on.

was: Re:My comment refuting his points (Score:2)

who's afraid of the GPL ..

[rs232]

'You can't tell me that somewhere in a basement in Redmond, men aren't typing away with unix code, creating a small OS that is the beginning of a back-up plan for MS when fit hits the shan'

Except it won't be covered by the GPL. I would have thought they would create their own propriety protocols, 'partner' with a Linux vendor and start selling Microsoft Linux and threatenig other Linux vendors with litigation.

was: Re:He's right about one thing...

Next

[Anonymous Coward]

Next: Microsoft shows the door to half of its software designers
and developers.

Musical chairs

[theolein]

The only losers will be Gates (who has already thrown in the towel), Balmer (who has already thrown in the chair), and the rest of the original dreamers with their juvenile fantasies about attaining world dominance.

Fixed(TM)

The Seven Reasons Really Are

[nightowl03d]

1. Fragmentation 2. Fragmentation 3. Fragmentation 4. Fragmentation 5. Fragmentation 6. Fragmentation 7. Fragmentation

underinformed

[bastardblaster]

This guy doesnt even know the difference between Unix and Linux, how can he comment on open source?