Slashdot Mirror
Hilf Claims Free Software Movement Dead
moe1975 writes to mention that Bill Hilf has taken a rather aggressive stance with regard to the status of the Free Software movement. With claims like; "The Free Software movement is dead. Linux doesn't exist in 2007. Even Linus has got a job today" it would certainly seem that the next offensive is going to be sponsored by denial. "For the desktop, Hilf sees a new frontier in terms of rich client programming. With more and more services by Amazon, Google, Yahoo and, of course, Microsoft being run as services rather than as software installed locally, it will be up to the desktop to provide richer functionality."
Hax-fu?
So, apparently, "Free Software" only exists if the people making it are unemployed?
Does this even begin to make sense?
Oh, wait, its from the "head of Microsoft's Linux Labs". Microsoft sayibng "Free Software is dead and Linux doesn't exist" isn't news, though I guess the fact that they've changed how they are saying it might be.
Having failed with the "Free Software is unreliable stuff put out by hippie slackers ideologues that have no idea how to make software usable in the real world" line, Microsoft is apparently now trying out a new line of FUD which doesn't even superficially make sense. "Big companies are involved in open source and people are getting paid, so, whatever the licensing terms say, its somehow not really free"?
How am I able to read this article? It is running LAMP.
Netcraft on bangkokpost.com
Even more strange, over 56% of the web must not exist either?
LOL... The guys picture in the article looks like an idiot. If anyone is believing this bullshit by some Microsoft shill... I got a deed to the Atlantic Ocean I want to sell, $1 billion dollars its cheap!
Software as a Service will never become popular as long as the open source movement exists. This is why Microsoft is trying its hardest to make everyone believe its dead and doing all the sabre rattling with regards to patents.
Proprietary software has its place in the marketplace but trying to force people who are already operating under the licensing model of software to switch to Software as a Service(SaaS) scheme... Even the most financially irresponsible person can see that paying $10-20/mo over the course of your computers lifetime is more than buying a single copy at $100-120 (oh wait sorry for Vista thats like $400 for Ultimate, this in comparison to Server 2003 which is $600).
SaaS has its place as well... I mean look at all the MMO's out there, they are all basically SaaS schemes. They work because they are providing something people want (a forum for interaction with both real people as well as computer AI 'mobs' and a sense of accomplishment). Of course one could argue that the servers the thing runs on is basically a service in which case a MMO truely becomes a Service as a Service scheme where you buy subscriptions (sorta like how Linux server distros sell service contracts to come help fix things if stuff gets broken)
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
After reading the article I would have to say that what he said was "Free Software is dead". And what was meant was that FOSS is developed by corporate entities that are in it to make a profit.
Which isn't to say that he doesn't have a frickin clue since the idea of FOSS wasn't to prevent people from making money with it. Or from allowing companies to be formed to make money from it, or even to develop it. But to allow the open source and FOSS to be developed openly and thus "Freely" to allow more innovation and fixed quickly.
He makes statements that seam to indicate that be believes that windows allows people to develop Software and hardware that would be impossible to develop using linux. And his reasoning is because Windows Creates incompatibility? Now I read the article and I had to read that statement twice, and honestly I think this should have been the title. "Windows Creates Incompatibility". But no one would have even read it twice and I have yet to understand why this is good for software or hardware benefits.
Interesting, isn't it?
The FOSS devs are mainly interested in writing software people want to use. To that end they don't really care what platform their stuff runs on, so long as people find it useful.
Microsoft on the other hand approach the problem from the opposite direction. They don't really care whether people find their software particularly useful or not, so long as they can destroy all the alternatives. You could hardly ask for a more succinct summary of the difference between the two camps.
As an aside, wasn't Hilf supposed to be from a FOSS background, back before MS hired him as their Open Source Guy? Seems either he never really understood FOSS, or else he's just been at MS so long that's gone native.
I wonder which is is: "has been" or "never was" :)
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!