Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Acknowledges Open Source As a Bigger Threat Than Google
ruphus13 takes us to ZDNet for an analysis of comments by Microsoft's Chief Software Architect, Ray Ozzie, about how open source is "much more potentially disruptive" to Microsoft's business strategy than Google. Ozzie also spoke about the future of Microsoft's search technology, which will develop with or without Yahoo. There is a related interview at OStatic with several Microsoft employees about how they view and interact with the open source community. The head of Microsoft's global open source and Linux team is quoted saying:
"The other thing I think is missing is implementation of a basic principle of economic fairness. Thousands of developers have put very hard work into building software used by millions of people and companies, yet only a fraction of these developers are rewarded financially. Currently there are perfectly good projects that have been abandoned by their developers despite being used by large corporations. Subsequently the projects fall out of use. This is unnecessary waste that would often be prevented by making it easy for companies to pay the developers directly. I think it's important to solve this so that the sustainability of open source projects is improved."
So, microsoft says "Free software might lead to lesser sales" and "Paid Alternatives not as attractive as Free ones!"
... and what would be a bigger threat to Microsoft - Alternative OS or ... adsense. Hmmm...
I'd say they're right.. but I'm also surprised that anyone has to say anything at all...
AND, well, Google isn't distributing alternative OSes, and the FOSS community IS
This never happens with commercial software.
Nothing is stopping companies from paying the developers. What is this guy's point exactly. And it's not like a company can't add a developer to their payroll to pick up dead OSS projects. Oh wait he's a M$ troll. It's FUD. It says "Please Mr. Company, don't use the OSS product, because it might get dropped, and then where will you be?" And "Please Mr. Developer, don't work on OSS projects, because people are just taking advantage of you." Gagh!
cat sig >
The second part is basically a restating of the old rule that hobbyist developers will scratch THEIR itch, not that of others. SO we have a bunch of very good FOSS coding tools and server software, but usability for non-developers is still lacking, if they even try. Still, it's true, even if geeks will scoff at it and go NYA NYA YOU CAN'T MAKE ME, doubly so if Miscrosoft employees say it - which is kind of sad.
Is for Google to release a Linux distro for desktops... Then Microsoft would be truly pissed off
They already have modified distroes running internally, so it wouldn't be too far-fetched, though I don't think it'd happen anytime soon, if at all.
Ray Ozzie: "I think it's important to solve this so that the sustainability of open source projects is improved."
I'm touched by this new warmer, fuzzier Microsoft! Now that it's "helped" the commercial software industry, creating a level playing field by bulldozing everybody else's buildings, it can turn its attention to "helping" the struggling open-source world. Welcome, new open-source overlords! May the innovations continue!
bacause most developers do it because of their personal interest. Getting paid is not bad but it means you *generally* loose control over the project sooner or later and project becomes a toy of the company which is paying the developers. Ofocurse, might be proved wrong.
They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me. -Nathaniel Lee
Think of the developers.
No, Ray, I don't see this is as a problem. You are seeing problems where none exist. If a lot of people use an open source project, someone will step in and maintain it, sooner or later.
My blog
MS is a business first and last. They just happen to extort their revenue from software. A thief will look at the Buddha and see only pockets.
Contentment is the greatest wealth
- Sukhavagga Dhammapada
Contentment is the goal behind all goals.
Recall a few years ago when Steve Ballmer was pooh-poohing the threat of open source? How delicious it is to see the ogre admit what everybody knew was true. Open source is killing them.
And as if closed Microsoft products don't "subsequently fall out of use." Look at Vista. We wasted a lot of effort testing this pig. We're skipping it. I'm sure more than one Softie got paid for working on Vista. Blaming disuse on FOSS is bogus.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
That an article about Microsoft's business strategy should be in a site named something like "static". By bullying vendors to stick with the capabilities and paradigm of Windows, Microsoft has helped hold back computing for twenty years. Much like Intel and x86
Since when Microsoft is a reference in economic fairness?
By the way, I'm sure programmers are not against financial reward, but most don't do it for that, so it's not an actual issue. The issue would be ether or not corporation should use software witch aren't certainly maintained for a reasonable time.
Also I wouldn't call a stopped project a wast, since anybody can take the source and re-start it. I wouldn't call the time spend on the stopped project a wast ether, since the programmer was probably doing what he liked. (or what he needed at the time) People do that all the time and nobody gets angry about it.
(\__/) This is Lapinator
(='.'=) copy it in your sig
(")_(") so it can take over the world
OS developers are not idiots - they KNOW that they are working for free (simplification, I know, there are exceptions, but it's not important now) and they wouldn't be if they didn't want to. If they do - that means they're just fine with that.
Oh, and note that the guy is speaking "open source" - but there's no word of "free software", that makes up quite a bit of Open Source and explains all the aspects of getting paid very well.
I call FUD.
This is Slashdot. Common sense is futile. You will be modded down.
"Thousands of developers have put very hard work into building software used by millions of people and companies, yet only a fraction of these developers are rewarded financially."
Yet again they've missed the point. Some of us developers don't develop for money - we develop for fun/to help the community/geek points. I'm not sure I'd actually want to get paid for the software I write - when something's a hobby, it can be enjoyed at whatever pace you like, but if I was getting paid for it, those who were paying me would feel annoyed if I went and watched a film in an evening instead of developing the software they now consider to have paid for. And there are many times I'd like to go out in an evening instead of sitting in front of my laptop watching GDB tell me I've segfaulted
It appears that yet again, Microsoft cannot look past the monetry value of people and software - for those who haven't read it, The Cathedral and the Bazaar by Eric S. Raymond is a good read, and covers this precise point in great depth.
Well, I RTFA and the summary makes it look a little bit like the quote is from Ray Ozzie. Well, Ozzie is the Chief Software Architect, the quote would actually be from Sam Ramji. Just wanted to clarify before more people started flaming Ozzie when they really should flame Ramji :)
But I love this gem from the actual Ray Ozzie Q&A:
Ozzie noted that if a new operating system were designed today, it wouldn't be a single piece of software that operates a single computer. It would be something that could accommodate multiple devices, with the user at the center.
Oh, you mean like Linux, which runs from embedded systems through desktops up to big-iron servers and supercomputers? Or even MacOS X, which runs at least on Macs and the iPhone?
"""This is unnecessary waste that would often be prevented by making it easy for companies to pay the developers directly. I think it's important to solve this so that the sustainability of open source projects is improved."""
I want your money.
Pay me.
Just because Microsoft-employed people don't consider the open source developers as being rewarded fairly, doesn't mean those developers don't consider themselves rewarded fairly. In my humble opinion, no one takes any action (including posting on slashdot) without at least the hope for some kind of return on their investment. You eat because you'd rather not die of starvation, you don't eat because you want/need to lose weight. The Golden Rule is a compensation structure for social actions. Getting money is an important and powerful reward on the scale for just about everyone, but it isn't the overriding one for everyone.
That doesn't mean the demand for money for effort isn't valid. Personally, I find no morally superior position in using open source software, or in the open source community. I use it for purely financial reasons (it costs me nothing, I won't be sued for using it). I don't care whether the developers got paid for it, because they made their own choices when they did their work on it. If they didn't feel they were being compensated fairly they shouldn't have contributed. If they expected that people would contribute just because they did and no one else did, they have only themselves to blame.
They want "software as a service?" How about SERVICE as a service?
So far, Microsoft has been pretty successful "printing money" by creating license keys (in another state so they don't have to pay taxes in their own state). We've all been following the gradual push for software as a service with dread that, so far, hasn't gained much traction. So not only are they interested in printing money, they want to print money with an expiration date. Meanwhile, for this and many other reasons, people are looking elsewhere for substitute technologies.
There is plenty of room for Microsoft to earn money, though. The name is still very well known and respected when it comes to information technology... some people even trust the name still. The only reason I can imagine Microsoft may want to abstain from moving more into the services arena is the wrath of all their "partners" out there providing services based on their software. (Though I have yet to see Microsoft being afraid or reluctant to screw 'partners.') But the reality of the OSS threat is that service providers are gradually looking at F/OSS solutions as an alternative to Microsoft's costly licenses. (Their service income remains about the same while the customer spends a LOT less.)
The MPAA/RIAA may have been rather successful at having laws written in their favor, but then again, there doesn't seem to be an alternative route for people seeking entertainment of similar quality. Software and information technology, on the other hand, has ample alternatives that are growing in interest.
(Interestingly, it is also being realized that Microsoft's tactics are partly responsible for the extremely slim margins on hardware prices forcing OEMs to sell Microsoft licenses to improve their profitability. Reducing this effect could result in better profits on hardware especially when they realize they can charge a premium for F/OSS supported hardware over 'Requires Windows' hardware.)
The government pressures from around the globe against Microsoft seem to be paying off to counteract Microsoft's tactics. It seems that perhaps the original remedy, to break Microsoft up in to smaller operational units, might have been healthier for Microsoft since it would have enabled the units to focus on the quality and marketability of their products. Under their current model, their OS and Office products are being used to keep them going while their other involvements are losing money in order to keep potential competition suppressed. Unfortunately for Microsoft, as they slowly fall, the entire operation will fall at once taking everything and everyone with them.
What he's saying is that Microsoft can't change, it has to continue building Windows, Office, etc. into ever-expanding Egyptian pyramids controlled by a priesthood. What, Microsoft can't participate in open source software too, except for a little dabbling here and there? They can't use learn to use licenses like the GPL for competitive advantage, the way MySQL and JBoss did?
... then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Gandhi.
The quote from the another article is: "Ozzie said that since many open-source programmers aren't beholden to shareholders they potentially represent a more formidable force in the market." So some one at Microsoft's finally said it, and it's believable from my stand point. What kills big successful companies is generally not poor engineering on the part of the engineers, but the fact that the engineers are beholden to marketing and upper management. Seems to correlate with what we know about the innovator's dilemma doesn't it? You may raise the argument that it's marketing and upper management's job to decide what will sell and what won't, but how many engineers do you know that aren't objective enough to judge their own ideas. An engineers job is to judge with his skills the best course of action in order to make the best product possible. I'm not saying that there doesn't need to be leadership, but I think most companies are to salary heavy where there is no value-add to the product.
Money is the root of all evil?
I don't think this Microsoft guy's argument is realistic.
Imagine if Microsoft held all rights and patents related to proxy software. Now imagine if they said they were no longer going to support or sale it-- but maintain their intellectual property rights. Plenty of businesses would be screwed.
Imagine if, in this scenario, they said "We aren't going to sell this software for platform _______", then every company depending on that platform would have to go out and find something that is supported.
I'd imagine, in the real world, if the maintainers of say, Squid, stepped down or pulled any bullshit-- it would be forked or new people would step in immediately to carry on with it.
But, he works for Microsoft, so when speaking in public, he's got to stick to a certain story regardless of his true feelings. I've got a couple of friends who work for them, and they aren't stupid. They just know not to ever say anything anti-microsoft while the public is listening.
Somehow I see the "???" as substitute for "the ugly part nobody wants to remember".
Surprise has two Rs in it. Did you know that before?
Microsoft makes software. Google provides a web service. Microsoft has presence in the web services industry, but it's an area Microsoft do not control. Google is an obstacle, not a threat.
Bzzzt. Thanks for playing. That was in the early 80's
Since then they've moved to being an company which hires good marketing companies. Then a company which hires good lobbying firms. Then a full-blown political movement/sect.
Notice Ozzie's playing by the by the rules in the link above. No technical comparisons allowed, just FUD, disinformation, misinformation and name calling. That's so 1990's.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Currently there are perfectly good projects that have been abandoned by their developers despite being used by large corporations.
Like Visual Basic or Windows XP? Too bad those projects aren't "open source" so that said corporations could step in and get support elsewhere.
)9TSS
Open source is satisfying for developers because they are doing ~what they like~ and ~what interests them~.
In contrast with fixing bugs for 10 years in a cubicle while listening to feudal management aristocrats squabble, periodically announce their delusional plans for market conquest, and garner obscene bonuses as a reward for their ineffectual nonsense.
Microsaur is unhappy watching a faster, more agile creature eat its eggs.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
So some guy who builds a popular open source software program move on the bigger and better and the project dies? Nope. If it is a popular project anyone can pick up where the last developer left off. What happens if a closed source company with a popular product goes out of business? Or what if the company just decides there is no money in the program they develop, but it is mission critical for you? They do not always make a transition or make the source open so where would people be who depend on these?
With open source, you should always be able to get your hands in code. Compare that to, unsupported & long forgotten, closed sourced binary objects necessary for a large organizations to work.
A professor I took classes from at The University of Sao Paulo, in Brazil, mentioned that the university had at some point all student grades and academic history in this proprietary program that no one knew how to use (except for the most basic commands), and that the binary executable and the database carrying the grades were a single file.
Meaning that the dammed thing would rewrite itself whenever a commit to disk was done.
No one had documentation for it, and the software provider had gone the way of dinosaur.
Mismanagement can happen anywhere. The PHB buys the wrong stuff, manuals are lost etc. With open source the re-engineering part of a rescue like that is normally much more feasible, and much cheaper.
Granted, reading code is harder than writing, but is still much easier than re-engineering.
No I don't.
I can read the GPL just fine without you, Sir.
Boycottnovell is where I keep up-to-date with Microsoft's latest anti-free, anti-open source, anti-human actions.
Don't let the name of the site fool you, they do keep a close eye on Microsoft and Novell's pact and current actions, but it's so much more than that. I'm discovering BoycottNovell.com to have fresher and better Linux news and Microsoft watching news than almost any other news site on the web, with Groklaw being one exception.
That Microsoft is allowed to still maintain anti-open source feelings in the face of overthrowing Corel Linux with money and returning to Corel Linux as it was rebranded as XandrOS and enter into a patent agreement, sign patent agreements with other companies involved with Linux, lie about interoperability and offer nothing than a few bent pubic hairs from Satan's ballsack by the name of Moonlight, tells me lady justice in America isn't just blind, she's also a rich, money grubbing whore who wouldn't know justice if all the jailed non-violent pot smokers surrounded her and blew smoke in her face.
In the "United States of Advertising" (Bill Hicks), Microsoft's egg sucking Ballmer runs free and we all suffer for it one way or another, with Bill Gates waiting in the wings to splash himself like an enema into American politics, so like the many curious remote exploits (backdoors) in WindowsXP, their biggest backdoor is yet to come. No project is safe so long as Microsoft is around, they will always find a way to inject their devil sperm into it, while their paid off cronies pump up anti-Google hype for the unwashed mashes to digest, while they are guilty of many of the same things, such as censorship in China, but the typical person, like the DOJ, always gives Microsoft a free ride.
Microsoft in 2008 is still ever the monopoly it was when it was convicted, if not much more so, especially with its filthy cock twisting and turning in the vulva of Linux and open source, the mysterious patent list looming.
If justice will not come to Microsoft, we must bring it ourselves.
"No More" I say to you, fat sissy boy pig Ballmer who hides from the flying eggs.
NO MORE!
... Open source is killing them.Yes. Now that (effectively) no closed source player are left. Darwinian natural selection has left us the strongest, open source projects. Many precede MS attack on the Internet. Open source is now killing Microsoft. It's a one-two, knock-out. Even most of the yahoo bid was based on stock not cash, and even some of that which is actual cash looks like it would have to borrowed.
Further, there's no market for MS, not even public-sector corporate welfare. See the mandates:
Source: A5-0264/2001
For all new European projects:
Source: European Commission technology strategy.
So rather than listen to nerdy Bill, slobby Ballmer, or their media proxies whine, listen to others: go open source, open standards. You save work, you save time, you increase security and you recession-proof your company.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
One counter-example for Microsoft: Windows XP. RIP.
No, Google uses Open Source to power their business. Their business model i.e. Google the company is based on proprietary methods and solutions.
"...a basic principle of economic fairness."
Oh, that's beautiful. The world's largest and most powerful software company is complaining that the competitive force it fears the most uses a system that is unfair.
How 'bout some cheese with that whine?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Redmond's Chief Software Architect Ray Ozzie.
- when you see a title like this, you know that the person hasn't done any development in years and the most he is doing now is Visio (this is MS) and Powerpoint.
"Microsoft has built up a culture of crisis," Ozzie told conference attendees.
- that is one of the problems with many companies, not just MS of-course. I hate this culture of 'crisis'. It's always brought upon yourself. It's in everything. Example: OMG, WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE UNLESS WE DELIVER THIS CRAZY PIECE OF WORK BY 2 DAYS FROM NOW. It always happens before weekend, you know, and it was always preventable. It is a management problem but it always ends up being developers' problem. Shortsightedness, that's another name for 'culture of crisis'.
He noted that, unlike Google, many open-source programmers aren't beholden to shareholders.
- many aren't and it's great.
Ozzie said that competing with open source "made Microsoft a much stronger company."
- I doubt it. Taking open source (like parts of BSD, TCP/IP stack etc.) made MS stronger. Being forced to compete with FOSS is tearing MS apart.
Ozzie noted that if a new operating system were designed today, it wouldn't be a single piece of software that operates a single computer. It would be something that could accommodate multiple devices, with the user at the center. That sounds like Live Mesh -- but perhaps he was also hinting about Microsoft's post-Windows, distributed operating system I keep hearing rumors about...
- just what I would expect from an 'arm-chair architect'. Coming up with gimmicks rather than looking at the simplest existing solutions. When ALL devices will have the same instruction set, the same processing speeds, the same amount of memory etc., yeah, then one OS would make sense for those devices. Until that moment each device will have its own simplest OS and to connect devices then all that is necessary is standard approach to networking protocols.
Yahoo was not a strategy unto itself," he said. "It was an accelerator to the ad platform.
,
"We are very, very serious about the online space,"
- of-course you are. Until 1995 MS didn't bother much with the 'internets', Borg's view of it was that there was no money there. MS is a crisis driven company, remember? When there is a crisis (like all of a sudden MS is not within a market where new technology is developing, because they didn't see money in it) then it starts moving it's collective ass. So after looking at Google's success with making money on text-ads delivered within the context of a search query, MS decided it wants to be there too. It's like all those little sushi restaurants that crowd together. I have noticed it, in the area where we live there was very little happening until about 5 years ago, one sushi restaurant opened up. Then within a year 3 more appeared within 50 METERS of each other. That's what MS is - trying to get a cut of that sushi money.
Programming tools that work across a variety of devices. At the very end of his remarks, Ozzie made a passing reference to the need for not just programming tools and services that can accommodate multi-core/many-core systems, but also tools that can work across a variety of devices. He noted that there's a need for development tools for building software that works across multiple devices. A reference to the Live Mesh Software Development Kit (SDK), expected to debut at Microsoft's Professional Developers Conference in late October? Perhaps....
- my god. I mostly work with Java, sometimes I do some stuff with C/C++, whatever. I hate it when a large corp (BEA for example) pushes their gimmick forward as if it was the next best thing right BEFORE the sliced bread. I am tired of it. I prefer tools that work well in their own space, tools that manipulate source in ways that are
You can't handle the truth.
>The other thing I think is missing is implementation of a basic principle of economic fairness. Thousands of developers have put very hard work into building software used by millions of people and companies, yet only a fraction of these developers are rewarded financially.
... but in return he has gained billions of hours worth of developed software without any financial loss. That increases his productivity drastically and thus the demand for his services and his pay.
This is complete bullshit. What is really going on is that free software forces the software market to center around services instead of licensing controls. That might be bad for somebody who wants a global monopoly, but is very nice for those who create and do stuff.
In an open source world, a software engineer may have lost a total monopoly over a work he creates
It is Microsoft who has deprived us of that benefit with their constant licensing fees and constant vendor lock in, not open source.
do you mean Open in the sense they have never shared their Page Rank algorithm with anyone?
Open Source Software is more of a threat then Google.
So a distribution method ideal vs. a Company is more of a threat then a Company vs. a Company. Well duh, in theory Google can be delt with, Purchased, Create a competive products that people like better, Partnerships, etc... Vs. Open Source which you can't Buy out Open Source (a concept), there is no real authority that controls Open Source it is just there. So in that case yes Open Source is more of a threat then Google. However Open Source more of a market force in which microsoft can change to be more open with. vs. Google who is undermining many of microsofts gains by creating a better product that doesn't care what OS you use or just as long as you follow most of the standards.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Just look at Linux as a prime example. Let's say Joe Sixpack or Joe Business wants to get the MS monkey off their backs and "go Linux." Well, the first thing they are going to find is that there is no "Linux" in the same sense that there is a "Windows." Linux is just a kernal (actually, it's different versions of a kernal, since not all distros use the same one). Choosing Linux means first having to choose from a confusing array of different distros, each with their own cheerleaders, strengths and weaknesses--and ALL much more poorly documented and supported than any version of Windows. And that's just the FIRST step. That doesn't even get into installation issues, driver support, etc.
With the exception of Firefox, I've never once seen a OSS program that I would compare to its commercial counterpart (again, with the notable exception of Firefox). One trip to just about any OSS website will usually make that clear. How many OSS webpages don't even EXPLAIN WHAT THE PRODUCT IS, much less document it, on their website? Seriously, MS has nothing to fear from software distributors whose websites consist entirely of lists of version bug fixes and forums.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Hell, this is just the same as getting a contractor to look at your Oracle installation or your table schema and (being an Oracle genius) getting them to optimise your database.
You saying companies can't do that?
What company do you work at???
There are also perfectly good commercial products which have been abandoned by their corporations despite being used by a fair number of clients or having a larger market potential. I personally was involved with a company that dissolved when it could no longer financially support itself (which incidentally happened a few years after they let go most of their top software engineers and stopped new development). The difference is that with open source software, anyone else can come along, pick up the code, and continue maintaining it. With proprietary software, you're up the creek without a paddle. The CEO of the aforementioned company refused to open source the most recent software we were working on even at the request of the lead developer of the project, so the project is pretty much dead before it ever saw the light of day.
Of COURSE it is Microsoft! You've backed yourself into a corner by making agreements with the hardware vendors that you WILL force users to upgrade with each iteration of Windows.
Now this worked fine when there were literally NO viable alternatives to Windows, but you've rested on your laurels too long, now people have options.
You're stuck between a rock and hard place, either fuck the vendors and lose out on all that lovely money, or continue to fuck your users and hope they don't notice.
I wonder which they'll try first...
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
Read "economic fairness" as "It's unfair to our economics when someone can get a program for free when they should pay us for an equivalent.
How many closed, commercial projects met an early death when the manufacturer decided to drop the software? How many users were left stranded, without a way to open files, complete projects or enjoy their previous investments? Their only choice was to PAY again for a different product to do the same thing they were doing two years ago.
The warped business model of Microsoft is like taxes. You pay and pay until you die, then your family cannot even enjoy what you had paid for as the license would not be transferable.
Still, to this day they do not understand what is going on. Sometimes people are creative because they love what they are doing. They want others to see their cool work and to recognize their efforts. Not always because they want to dump their work over to a cold, dispassionate corporation and let it be sold over and over again to a captive installed base.
Fifty years from now I suspect we will look back at this time as a fluke, when big business was squeezing us dry for software. Our grandchildren will look back and wonder how did we ever overcome the stifling limitations on creativity.
Tisha Hayes
Microsoft is their own worst enemy. All one has to do is look at Vista to see that. Vista tries to be all things to all people and as a consequence it fails to measure up in just about every category. There is too large a bureaucracy for true innovation to occur at Microsoft and there is clearly too much of a focus on backward compatibility and trying to play catchup to other tech companies (Google, Apple, etc) that are the ones doing the real innovating in the industry.
I'm more worried about close source projects closing for lack of funds/sales. See, most if not all of open source proyects have a Donations button somewhere on their webpage, but most proprietary software projects don't. Closed Source projects, specially game development houses could use a Donation button "for all those who downloaded the game for free, from somewhere, and who liked the game so much they want to reward the developers". Some distributors might not like that they don't get a cut from those payments, but hey, they didn't help distribute the game to the donor in the first place.
"The head of Microsoft's global open source and Linux team is quoted saying: "The other thing I think is missing is implementation of a basic principle of economic fairness. Thousands of developers have put very hard work into building software used by millions of people and companies, yet only a fraction of these developers are rewarded financially."
It really touches me that Microsoft is concerned about the well being of the people who develop the products that are its greatest competition! A more cynical person might think that their real motivation is to destroy the open source model by injecting huge costs.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Why doesn't he get his employer to host a "sponsor a developer" project, to allow users of Open Source software to contribute funds to support those projects? After all, it's all about the developers, right?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Why would you need something as tightly-coupled as distributed devices in a distributed operating system? Why wouldn't you just export standard service APIs a la "Web 2.0" (whatever the hell that is)?
The only reason I can see to have such a "distributed OS" is to work around problems in the current flock of corporate operating systems: lock-in, non-standard implementations, DRM, and poor security models.
Not that I don't think a distributed operating system isn't cool. It is. But I think the utility is limited, as an operating system should concentrate on providing abstract interfaces to hardware. Let the services fend for themselves.
Of course, I'm not a hard-core OS developer. So my opinion on the matter is almost useless.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Very true. It's corporate America that got us into this in the first place. When the IBM PC came out, suddenly the personal computer was an acceptable business tool. (Before that, it was generally Apple ][s that people brought in from home to run Visicalc, without corporate acceptance.)
What we do blame Microsoft for, and rightfully, is the way they manipulated the market once they had control. That is Microsoft's fault. They got big because of us; they stayed big because they had more power than anyone else, and were willing to use it.
And for that, I do blame Microsoft.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I know one Microsoft employee. He is evil and anti-OSS (well he says he has no problem with OSS projects run by "professionals" (which he seems to define as a person who has previously worked at a high-profile, well-recognized company)). He compared "Joe schmoe" OSS projects as he calls them to cars held together with duct tape. Just this morning he did. I try to have a civilized conversation with him but he can't stop dissing me (particularly my age and relative lack of coding experience) and he immediately goes on the offensive when the conversation turns to anything OSS-related.
You have to put yourself in their shoes though. Imagine you have a high-paying job at a big company working hard to produce quality products (and sometimes failing horribly), and some free apps slapped together by a bunch of young guys who didn't have to claw their way up the corporate ladder are running clean over your work, with code that is sometimes messy, in groups that are sometimes poorly organized. If you were a status-seeking greedhead, that would make your blood boil.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
They just don't friggin get it do they? This you scratch my back and i'll scratch yours thing is a complete mystery to Microsoft - i hope it spells their demise....
If you'd said the BSDL, I might have believed you. Most non-lawyers can fully understand BSD and MIT licenses, but something like the GPL is a huge blob of legalese that very few people fully understand.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I know it's cliched to roll out that old crisis in Chinese chestnut, but a smarter company wouldn't see open source as a threat, rather as an opportunity.
There are plenty of companies that have cottoned on to the idea of positively exploiting open innovation for their own gain with the reciprocal gain for open source itself. However, it does not bode well for Microsoft that they still see it as (a) a threat to their dominant position for which the only remedy is all out war (FUD etc) and (b) as something to exploit for their own gain without fairness.
Either Microsoft cops themselves on now, and properly - or they will go the way of the buggy whip.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
When it turns out that option 3 is really
pay a company to do option 1.
From which the paid company would be hoping to have not only the developer paid but the staff overseeing them AND a little gravy on top.
Option 3 is only cheaper if lots of people want option 1 but they don't want to get together and DO option 1 shared out amongst themselves. Which brings up the question: why?
Richard Stallman and Bill Gates
siting by the fi-re
Richard Stallman and Bill gates
singing Kom-by-yaaa
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
My rights don't end where your feelings begin.
"Currently there are perfectly good projects that have been abandoned by their developers despite being used by large corporations. Subsequently the projects fall out of use. This is unnecessary waste that would often be prevented by making it easy for companies to pay the developers directly."
How hard is it for a company to pay a developer directly. I mean, are there any large companies that cannot figure this out? If so and you are in a large company that needs help figuring this out, I am available on a consulting basis to help you with this issue. Fees to be worked out depending on your needs. Results guaranteed.
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
Google is the biggest threat to Microsoft.
Thanks for the pdf link. Important passages of it are available in text here. The most delicious text is this:
His regret for releasing these documents was as complete as his company's contempt for anti-trust rulings and records. M$'s legal team had managed to mop up a lot of damaging email from previous anti-trust cases, then these dopes go and brag about what a bunch of assholes they really are. The author apologized and tried to act like times had changed, but it should be obvious times will never change at that company. Somehow, I think he's still sitting on that beach laughing at everyone, especially M$ as it collapses. There must be thousands of people who feel like suckers for signing LOAs, taking grants and otherwise acting like pawns, that will never ever trust the Soft again.
Otherwise known as "rape and plunder". </troll> :-)]
[Mod me down if you like, but you know it's true.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
If Microsoft can figure out how to tied the developers' futures to the success or failure of a software package, then they can get that argument to stick.
Right now, most developers make their money on salary. If the project, or the code base, or even the company they work for goes belly up, they just go get another job making a salary. Case in point, most open source developers get paid to develop or at least contribute to the open source code base (myself included).
To be clear, this would probably involve a payment structure that includes some kind of royalty payments, which would bring a lot of risk for the developer. Great developers don't tend to be great business men. I don't see things changing, so this argument that Microsoft folks always drag out just isn't going to stick (and hasn't stuck).
What's more interesting is that there is no reason Microsoft could not start taking advantage of all the great Open Source software out there - except GPL in many cases, though they could use it in some, and LGPL is certainly on the table - JS2 support in IE anyone? I don't see why not. Even if they don't like the tech, there is no reason not to deploy it as part of their browser.
http://www.unfocus.com/
"Clearly there are powerful core concepts of transparency and sharing at the heart of this movement. However, it's starting to blur the original ideas articulated by Eric Raymond, Danese Cooper, et al, which are about the source code itself and the developers who share it. The risk is that the term itself loses meaning over time, which would be unfortunate as it's a powerful idea. So one very important thing that's missing in 'the community as a whole' is a common philosophy that is clear and broad enough to be embraced by everyone and allows some of the factional arguments to be settled peacefully."
Eric Raymond and the rest weren't creating a movement, they were describing one, and the core concepts of transparency and sharing are old as programming. The idea that code shouldn't be shared didn't really take any kind of strong hold until the '70s, really. Not only was most code written because it had to be there to sell the hardware, but much of it was so primitive in many ways that you needed access to the source code to get it to work. You had commentators in th '60s and '70s assuming that programming, or at least code literacy, would be as common as literacy itself by the turn of the century. On top of that you had the academic world where publishing enough information to reproduce an experiment was simply what you did.
So the movement that can't be named has been around longer than Microsoft, let alone the FSF or the OSI. The common philosophy is that sharing code is a good thing... the biggest differences are all about how much sharing is enough.
Now that came as a surrprise!
Or open in the sense that they've never released the custom version of Linux they run all of their servers on?
Everyone is always out to make a buck. That's exactly the reason WHY open source and free software exists, provide balance to the profit mongers. It is the analog of the public library contrasted to the book store. They both have their place. I use the public library frequently because it is stupid to pay for all the books you want to read, the music you want to hear and the movies you want to watch. Free software extends that same principle to computers. Which is why I personally believe that libraries and FOSS are a perfect match.
Do I actually buy books, music and movies? Yes. Usually I buy used. I also tend to be into rare items, so I'll spend far more money on rare things than I would on some mainstream crap. That's why I'm glad Amazon exists. Recently I was borrowing a book from the library and found it so interesting I had to own a copy for future reference. Of course I bought it used. But still I actually bought it. This is the way most people should live (not that I advocate forcing people to do that). I'm just saying it's the best approach. By using the public library, I'm supporting a very important institution. By buying second hand, I'm reusing items that might otherwise be wasted. Far better than buying everything I want and not even appreciating half of it (which is what the spend thrifts do). Screw that guy and his ideas. He's a jackass.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
We at Microsoft have recently noticed that open source software is important in the IT world and would like very much to help you make all your open source projects run flawlessly on our closed source OS.
We do not think that without our help you would tie your open source code directly into our proprietary APIs and therefore you would lose all the benefits of tying into Windows that will accrue to us ^H^H you.
Sincerely,
Ray Ozzie
Counterexamples: Doctors without borders (doctors), Pro Bono (lawyers), Jesus (carpenters) [sorry, couldn't resist].
Giving away something for free != holding the gift as valueless. I have rarely seen someone miss a concept as thoroughly as you have.
Let us not become the evil that we deplore.
Perhaps Ray Ozzie is going to start a new organization to protect developers of free software from themselves.
METH - Microsoft for the Ethical Treatment of Hobbyists!
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
Microsoft's efforts are designed to roughly match what is available from other sources (while trying to kill everything else off, but that is another discussion). So, FOS software is dictating what we all get, even if we don't use FOSS. FOS program x adds feature y...and eventually Microsoft adds something similar -- everyone ultimately gets feature y (some with crapware z).
Since Microsoft has pretty much maxed out their OS, both in featureset (Vista had to actually down-grade things to give newbies the change they crave) and marketshare, all that is left is for someone else to do it all for free. This leaves Microsoft playing eternal catch-up, with a constant downward pressure on their OS's price. All driven by FOSS.
It is so interesting that Microsoft always claim their need to innovate when they, almost be definition, do anything but. Hail to FOSS programmers -- the only value providers left in the software arena. Microsoft is more like Wal-Mart, sucking the value out of the system while compensating no one but themselves.
I come here for the love
If you went to a commercial company, even if you asked for something they had done earlier for another customer and kept all rights to use in new projects you wouldn't get anything for free. Not only because it makes business sense, but also because they often charge less for items with resale value as completely new code with documentation, testing and so on is very expensive. You can forcibly distribute the cost because the source is closed.
Now imagine an OSS project and two identical companies except one is always 6 months ahead of the other in complexity of use. Imagine that keeping a private fork is unpractical (which would be more true in the real world than in this contrived example). The leader would have to pay for development of the application - all of it. And if your breaking new ground, chances are you'll be the one breaking new ground next time too. The follower on the other hand can just sit back, pay nothing and get features from upstream as they come. Being on the bleeding edge is relatively very expensive so you try to hold out hoping someone else will pay for it.
The same translates to bounties or other forms of shared payment, if you had 200 people willing to pay 1$ for something I think you'd still have trouble collecting 100$ - even though there's sufficient willingness to pay everyone hopes the others will pay for it so they don't have to. Every time you just shrug and say "Well, maybe in the next release" you're hoping someone else will pick up the tab.
The result is that the lead customers give up the expensive development, only to pass the entire bill to the next in line who also won't take the whole bill and it's a little bit like an implosion. There's enough cash available but the model is putting all the costs on a few at a time. I'm not talking about users of existing features subsidizing users of new features really, I'm talking about the countless "nice to have" features that people would use if they were available but don't want nearly badly enough to hire a developer to do it. I'm talking about contributing a share for a substantially better product, even though you're not the one pushing the boundaries. At that the OSS model really sucks, sorry.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
...but they just haven't realized it yet.
What truly boggles my mind is that Microsoft hasn't released "Microsoft Linux", embracing and extending (though not necessarily "extinguishing" the concept this time) it to become the core of Microsoft's OS offerings. Whatever strengths Microsoft possesses, I'm sure we can all agree that OS design is not recognized as being in that group by a large number of people in the technology industry.
Imagine what could happen if Microsoft were to throw its weight and influence behind a standardized distribution of GNU/Linux?
Sure, it would mean revolutionizing Microsoft's approach to business in many ways (though not in others), but the benefits to Microsoft are practically uncountable. I would even venture to say that it could, in the end, turn out to be highly beneficial to the F/OSS community as a whole (though very likely damaging in other ways).
Sometimes, I really have to wonder what the guys in Redmond are doing with all the time and money they have...
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Economists measure worth in dollars, but other common uses of the term worthless include "of no use" according to dictionary.com. If FOSS were of no use, it wouldn't power so much of the Internet. Clean air is free, but certainly of great value, just not in dollars.
I author some open-source programs, my favorite being DataDraw. There are good reasons I make this open-source. It's code I need, yet cannot sell, and while I help the world a little bit by making it open-source, the world helps me a little bit by improving it. It's a common example of a program that only makes sense as FOSS.
People get so confused about FOSS, especially most corporate management, who see it as some sort of communist threat. The truth is that most of us FOSS guys are as greedy as the next. If we could sell our software for a profit, we would. That's why FOSS should not threaten programmers or innovative companies. Software tends to go open-source only after no reasonable market for it exists any longer. The reason that Microsoft is specifically threatened by FOSS is simple. They make a lot of their money off their monopoly, rather than innovation. A bunch of hackers can duplicate Microsoft's OS, web browser, and many other tools in their free time. I hear Microsoft's latest Office suite has new innovations, and guess what? It's still selling. It's only when Microsoft stands still that it's threatened. Take Vista for example.
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
Obviously, Microsoft is a software company, they want to make money selling their software as they have in the past. And now, more and more I think that free and open source software obviously puts a wrench in their historical business plans and profits.
I hardly consider Microsoft's buy out of Novell a contribution towards open source software. Except for Microsoft, big companies, like IBM, are paying open source developers for their work. I think that adding monetary reward to open source projects has both pros and cons attached to it. The developers get the benefit of payment for their work. The big company may have other strategic schemes in mind like, perhaps only making their wares integrate with the open source software. For example, although the Linux kernel will work on a number of CPUs, it is still primarily targeted for the legacy and proprietary x86 processors. In my opinion, the Linux kernel would be better if it worked well on lots of cores, especially open cores such as massively parallel mini CPUs.
Speaking of abandoned open source projects, there is also a lot of dead code which is owned by companies in the name of intellectual property, and failed projects. Call it corporate abandon-ware. Corporate abandon-ware is not easily available to just any developer who feels like picking it up. On the other hand, abandoned source projects can be more easily revived if a developer feels inclined to do so, and we see this happen.
I find this post to be INCREDIBLY insightful and informative! The use of dollar signs to spell the company name is EXTREMELY innovative!
- twitter
Adapted from http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/docs/HOWTO/Advocacy
Choosing to use an open-source application that the developer ultimately abandons seems like a much better option than using a closed-source application of the same fate. ;-)
Google is an avid supporter of open source software and google uses open source software, google motivates development of open source software.
Microsoft is all too aware of this, and the big issue they are facing is a well entrenched google. They can't even afford to break google, because than Microsoft would face a severe penalty (monopoly abuse).
Are you guys in here all blind or something? Just connect the dots and it's all too obvious. There is a corporate war going on, and Microsoft is on the losing side.
The open source community is just a weapon of everyone opposite to the "Microsoft" camp, as is SCO a weapon on the "Microsoft" camp. But who's more on the side where Microsoft is on?
And more importantly; who are the good guys, and who are the bad guys?
Whether he was The Son of God, or just another son of God (like the rest of us) who managed to spend 40 days in the desert and come back with his shit really together can be debated.
You have accept that approximately 2000 years ago a man named Jesus walked the planet.
And he made enough of an impact we still discuss him today.
Discussing you in 2000 years, not so much.
Geez, so many issues to address. One thing at a time...
Sure lots of F/OSS projects die for MANY reasons, and they may not may not be picked up by someone in the future, but compared to what? BeOS was a project many companies got invested in and that project died and CAN'T be picked up by anyone else. Microsoft has had many projects they bought, and then never further developed because it wasn't in their best financial interests. With proprietary software it has to be within the financial interests of the rights holder to develop the project further. In the F/OSS world ANYONE with the need, desire, and ability can improve on any project be it going strong or a decade abandoned.
Much more importantly, can we agree at least that sometimes writing code takes a little more effort than sitting at the computer punching out your ideas? Sometimes it really takes the collaboration of great minds to develop great software. Google has the power to buy just about anyone it wants. I've heard they are about the only company that can buy developers away from Microsoft. The point is that some software, or even any invention, is only useful as something to sell. How many retail stores likely survive not because it they sell anything worth a darn, but has things that make "good" gifts? Look at the whole teddy bear and gift basket industry. Cards have a utilitarian value, but look at all the things that can only be sold around Christmas because the products are worthless to the buyer. Personally, I see a lot of this "economic development" suffering from the Broken Window Fallacy. I go into Fry's all the time and the walls are just lined with crapware with scare tactics to get people to buy them.
So here is the contrast:
There is no way to succeed financially from developing Linux crapware. OH NO! What ever will we do?!? Some business secrets need to be held closely, and at other times tools for doing business create competitiveness that drives your markets growth. As with any market, its growth can make or break any business.
Take Avid Technology as an example: They sell sound equipment and software. Their advertising campaign tries to tell people about all the things they can do with their stuff. Mostly musicians. But what if all that was open source? A community of all kinds of artists could educate people on the many applications of sound equipment for home or industrial use. Their software? They have the industries best! What would they have to gain from open-sourcing their software? Well, Red Hat isn't doing too bad. Avid is already leading the industry and has a well respected name. Official support to clients and most timely updates. Up and rising artists/programmers could improve on the best software in the world! They also lead in fabricating specialized equipment... and this would be hurt how by expanding the market into an even larger community? Some will pay to have everything just work and delivered in a professional way, while others with less money will buy essential equipment and hack out the rest. Avid is ahead because it continues to hire the best in industry and researching its game. Are they done innovating and just surviving on being ahead of everyone else, or are they really leading the industry in strong ways that people will continue to respect?
This reminds me of the Tortoise and the Hare. Slow and steady can win the race, but was there any reason why the Hare could not have had some kind of work ethic to win the race also? Microsoft is an old, blind, and senile rabbit that knows nothing better about how to win a race than laying bear traps, land mines, and talking smack about the tortoise. In any given race, the rabbit should be able to win with hard work. To relate more closely to F/OSS, F/OSS is a pace car that lets anyone jump into the race at any time. There are just two options, and they can be tough to pick from depending on what you want your software to do. Is your software the secret, or just something that helps your business that can be improved on? BSD/MIT and
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
gOS is still bundled with machines sold at Walmart.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
not a developer. Sure he posts saying he is, but he has never been able to get linux successfully installed, and even when other folks did help him get it running, he soon undid their work and bricked his PC again, and I've never seen anyone even with the most basic VB experience fail to get a linux install working.
Some folks will never be able to do linux, having refused introductions to critical thinking during their formative years, they then later on try to disguise their inadequacies with wildly inaccurate tales of invented linux inadequacies, whereas most folks know better and understand that RobDude is in fact not up to the task and needs to let the Best Buy Geek Squad take care of his PC issues, they have the suitable equipment to clear RobDude's PC of the puddles of drool that inevitably form inside the box and keyboard.
Actually, there are no Rs at all!
I think you were just trolling, but whatever. Companies do pay for FOSS development. Sometimes they share their innovations, sometimes not. Often people write software for themselves to accomplish a task that makes them money. It is "worthless" in that the software was only a means to an end and there would be no economic harm to the developer in giving away something that wasn't their business.
F/OSS is destroying opportunities for programmers about as quickly as free cookbooks have destroyed the restaurant industry for chefs. Sorry, not going to buy it. And before you respond with "Well, you can't just go into a restaurant and ask the chef for his recipe." Yes you can, and I've done it. I cook a lot, and on the rare occasion that I make it to a nice restaurant, I'll spend some time talking it up with the chef and they, so far, always been delighted to share their recipes. For what it is worth, I have only done this five times, cause I am sure you are asking yourself. Are you really going to claim that the dynamic range and competitiveness for restaurants is weaker than software development?
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
.... world domination.
Is that a bad thing or a good thing?
Have gnu, will travel.
What Microsoft seems not to understand is that for many of us, Windows and Office complicate our lives, rather than solving our problems. The periodic costs Microsoft imposes on users in order to keep up its earnings is enormous. The Office 2007 upgrade (which I had to install for compatibility with colleagues) broke some of my old macros (I simply got a message saying that the macros --- which worked fine in office 97, 2000, and 2003 --- were no longer available), it fouled up existing documents containing equations, and it required me to relearn the interface. I mean, WTF?? Making the ribbon mandatory rather than optional is the behavior of a bully. The WGA check (more than once a year) is the behavior of a bully. Outlook's lack of compatability with everything else is the behavior of a bully.
So what do I do in response? I pay hundreds of dollars a year to the FSF, EFF, the MikTeX project, OpenOffice, and other projects. I am slowly switching my kids to Ubuntu. (Microsoft is making this easy because the dual-booting Windows XP install at home is getting slower by the day and the kids are starting to complain. It takes *forever* to reboot from Window back into Windows.) If Microsoft offered *better* software that was *compatible* with alternatives, and that did not threaten to lock up my data and render it unavailable, I would buy their software willingly. As it is, I am moving slowly, but definitely, to remove Microsoft from my computing life. I suspect that the same force driving me --- Microsoft's disregard for the user --- is driving a lot of the open source movement.
It might be a good idea to use the term "O$$" for people writing stuff that will be released under an open license, but getting paid for it. Ideally this should be people who would not bother writing it if they were not paid. This is not a small set, in fact it is probably a quarter or so of the contributions to Linux.
This would also drive crazy the astroturfers, who always go into a childish rage when they see "M$" here. I recommend that "MS" only be used for stuff Microsoft does for no income.
What part of "uses Open Source to power their business" did you and the GP miss?
open source is "much more potentially disruptive" to Microsoft's business strategy than Google.
Well if that's the case, then it's time to look for a business strategy with a FUTURE, moron. The business strategies that depended on slave labor or cheap gasoline are rather past their prime, too...
Honestly, many companies are paying for FOSS developers or buying companies producing FOSS products.
Projects that are useful are not abandoned, projects that aren't remain dormant, and nothing stops luminaries at MS to pick them up if they are such great products.
MS is so fixated in money that they have forgotten that computing is also about fun. Many people contribute to projects just because it is fun and satisfying to do. Why should be that monetized as a matter of urgency?
So if MS is so disconnected with the industry trends they should have a hard look at themselves and stop giving advice where none is really needed.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
How embarassing. ~
This is SO insightful. But, mshaft would consider it "inciteful"...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1415
So, now they want to point or shift blame away from themselves....
WHY did they have to break the winhlp32.exe file? WHY could they not bridge the functionality, or emulate it to work with "compatibility" mode only for pre-Vista apps. No, they probably wanted to screw over anyone (including help file software makers) to FORCE people to shift to Vista, when it looked as if XP was facing End of Life...
Is it any WONDER that the company is perpetually in paranoia/defense mode? As schizophrenic as that company is...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Let me introduce you to Symantec. They make an application called "Ghostcast server", which is used to clone PCs in bulk. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find out which product they offer contains this application, how much it costs and how it works. Give it a shot. It's like Where's Waldo for geeks.
Like X? That was over quickly. Imagine what would happen if Microsoft decided to change their windowing environment and its terms, and it was so hated nobody would want it. Wait -- you don't have to pretend.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
"Much more potentially disruptive to the Microsoft business strategy" To be honest I wouldn't call 'eliminating everything slightly in the way to rake in slightly more cash to an already overcrowded bank' a marketing strategy would you?
Fortran is for pimps.
Perhaps this isn't plain old FUD. The suggestion here is that s/w can't exist unless someone (namely Microsoft) gets between the customers and the developers. They've already figured out how to do this with Windows, either through fees or in direct competition with s/w shops. Now they're going after OSS.
Give IT management a cut of the deal and Microsoft can land a sole source contract. Then, it doesn't matter whether the customer wants Linux or Windows.
Have gnu, will travel.
"I think it's important to solve this so that the sustainability of open source projects is improved."
Microsoft: a solution looking for a problem
Damnit. It's embarrassing rising to obvious bait like this ;)
(this post is purely for those of you who may have been confused as to what the parent AC was trying to accomplish)
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
I really like this in-depth comparison of the GPL and MS's Eula
While I could understand that from a hypothetical standpoint of a company strongly invested in Microsoft, and mind you that is likely a lot of companies, that doesn't apply to all. There are companies that work on a foundation of open source. Sun and IBM as familiar examples. Each of those companies put in a lot of work towards Linux Kernel, adding features those companies needed, then turning their code over to the F/OSS community. Neither IBM or Sun could develop everything that is called Linux, but being part of the community they get way more than they develop in return. You can take THAT to the bank.
Companies that are deeply invested in F/OSS have little they need to work around to get changes and improvements that they need in their software. Also, dead projects are absorbed into others, but most often they are replaced with better ones. Example, BSD forked into FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD. They went different directions on stuff, but continues to share compatible code. By matter of popularity or whatever, FreeBSD has really beating out the others. I think many may say that OpenBSD and NetBSD are dead in many ways, but at the same time FreeBSD has greatly benefited from the project having forked because a conflict managed to play itself out. Basically, if you want OpenBSD, get FreeBSD, and if something is missing that you want from OpenBSD it isn't going to be too hard for XYZ Company to hack that out. It is all a matter of the present position of the company.
Also, I think in your example of $BIG_INTERNAL_APP, you just described proprietary code development. Firing head developer with no one to take over?
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
Just goes to show you how much legal mumbo jumbo it takes to say 'You can copy, distribute and alter the program however you see fit as long as you release the source along with modifications if you distribute any of it'
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Because the employee is speaking for the employer. Microsoft is a company that thrives on buying out software projects and gluing them (with varying degrees of success) into their collection. Their issue with free software projects is that they cannot always buy them out. If the project is not "monetarized", then it cannot be easily manipulated. It is all about corporate control.
I can only speak for myself as a developer, not for anyone else. But I do my projects as a hobby, and to return something back to the linux community which I have been apart of for the last 7-8 years. Giving back the same as other people have made available to me, gives me a lot of satisfaction, if someone wants to donate to the project, then that is good, but I'm quite happy not to receive anything at all. I do hope that my projects are found to be useful, and allow the world to benefit and to open up it's mind regarding opensource. Here is my site if you would like to sse the project that I'm currently running. http://www.kirramail.com/
"...someone from Microsoft is suddenly all concerned for the financial well-being of OSS developers that makes me concerned."
It kind of reminds me of the joke about the blind man with a seeing-eye dog who stops at a street corner and gets pissed on by his dog. Then, moving the leash to the hand holding the cane, he pulls a treat from his pocket and offers it to the dog. Someone standing nearby points out what the dog has just done and asks the blind man why he is rewarding the dog for being naughty. The blind man answers "that's just so I can find which end to whack with my cane."
Open source developers are like the dog, and the blind man is MS, still no wiser as to where to hit to damage the adversary, and unable to hit too hard or too obviously because the other companies who benefit from OSS would sue.
Well, the treat they're offering may just be Microsoft trying to figure out who's who, so they can find out if their own employees ratted them out on a blog in violation of a gag order, or to quantify and understand their #1 enemy, or just to see if they'll be able to pounce on specific market sectors easily. For most people, no doubt they would try to act really nice and give out free stuff like SDKs, free marketing offers, free spam messages about developer conferences, discounts, beta test freebies, that sort of thing. They might convince some people to switch to the "dark side" eventually, and that would be a big win for them.
They specifically mention in the article that the OSS community is not "unified," which is actually just an opinion pulled out of the air. They would like you to begin thinking that it isn't unified so that it can seem more plausible to apply the divide and conquer strategy (e.g. GPL vs. BSDL, Mac OSS vs. Linux OSS vs. Windows OSS). They might try to fund only BSDL projects or add Windows-only features to the biggest OSS projects, for instance, if they think this will cause a rift. Gates saying that GPL code "can't be modified" is basically a hint of this. He's not so stupid as to actually believe such a shocking untruth, but it would be really difficult to prove willful ignorance on his part. In reality, they're worried that either BSDL or GPL could eat their lunch because either one can promote free standards and give their competitors a leg up (sorry for the pun). GPL has been around practically forever but they really started to dislike it recently because they've figured out that it evolves to counter new loopholes.
I don't expect them to bribe anyone directly, but maybe their affiliates will be funding lots of interoperability features that make sure their developers have a bridge to jump across if their Windows platform crashes and burns in the marketplace.
If they get enough critical mass with OSS developers, they might even convince some of them to add lots of bloat to open source projects so that their own products don't look so bad in comparison. Of course, they won't call it adding bloat, it'll be called cool new features, cool new devices, and cool new protocols, and they'll just need lots of them. They could, for instance, add a bunch of unnecessary modules for nonexistent hardware and make Linux take longer to boot and take up a big chunk of RAM. Since most of us would be suspicious if Microsoft asked us to put a binary blob into Zimbra or Samba, I would guess that their affiliates would be willing to act as the "customer" for this kind of enhancement.
My advice: take the free stuff but watch out what you agree to on the EULAs as it may prevent you from contributing to some OSS projects in the future. Don't give them any identity information if you can help it, just in case they turn into a RIAA-type troll organization someday.
Ssssssssss...
You can't send a takedown notice to an already printed newspaper.
"Currently there are perfectly good projects that have been abandoned by their developers despite being used by large corporations. Subsequently the projects fall out of use. This is unnecessary waste that would often be prevented by making it easy for companies to pay the developers directly. I think it's important to solve this so that the sustainability of open source projects is improved." Wouldn't micropledge.com be a good way to support abandonware and even ongoing projects that need some assistance?
"They specifically mention in the article that the OSS community is not "unified," which is actually just an opinion pulled out of the air."
He's quite right in saying that OSS developers (It's not "a community") aren't unified. The lie is in trying to pretend that this makes them somehow different from commercial closed-source developers, when the reality of the matter is that developers as a species aren't unified, irrespective of any licensing conditions that apply to the projects they're working on.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
> rising to obvious bait like this ;)
how the FUCK is that bait? Didn't you see the sarcasm marker at the end?? Idiot.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
"He's quite right in saying that OSS developers [...] aren't unified."
He can say it without proof and most people will just take a vague statement like that at face value. I wasn't saying he was right or wrong, just saying he's not quite an objective observer on this. If you see his assertion repeated constantly, they are likely trying to nudge perceptions of it closer to what they want people to believe. Eventually they can convince developers that their astroturf posts represent actual views within the developer community and that the community is divided, making threats, retaliating and all that sort of melodramatic claptrap that can be used to fool banana republics into self-destructing without firing a shot.
He is right in the sense that corporate boards are used to dealing with the relatively few people at the top of other chains of command who can make their decisions and commitments stick. That much they are comfortable with, and they have lots of money, patents and lobbying influence to use as leverage in those situations, but with this group there is no single overlord to strike deals with that will cause the entire group to click their heels and salute.
He is wrong in the sense that open source developers do share some common interests, and this is enough to bind them together on a lot of issues even if they may disagree and pick nits about others.
Either way, he cares less about the accuracy of his statements than he cares about how to benefit his stockholders, so take all such webcasts intended for public consumption with a sizeable crystal of sea-salt. Executives don't lie, they are just "occasionally misinformed," and if that involves repeating some convenient view over and over within earshot of the press then, well that's just coincidental.
You can't send a takedown notice to an already printed newspaper.
I fail to see why you wrote this long post, because I said essentially said the same thing in the bit from my post you didn't bother to quote.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
No offense but you simply do not understand what OSS is.
OSS isn't Sourceforge, it isn't Linux, nor Firefox, nor Gimp nor any singular piece of software. It isn't documentation or lack of documentation, bugginess or non-bugginess is also not OSS. After all, any attribute you want to assign to OSS projects/software is equally assignable to non-OSS. Windows is easy to use and well documented? My Arse. If that were true why the multi-billion dollar Windows training industry? Why the multibillion dollar book industry? Simple: the claim is bogus. Most software has bugs and almost every piece of software could be better documented. Thus all of your "reasons" about OSS not being a threat are invalid on their face. I've even seen a lot of commercial software not "EXPLAIN WHAT THE PRODUCT IS" on their website. Your vapor anecdotes notwithstanding this is not an aspect of interest either.
The reason OSS is threat to MS is no market share. It is not mindshare. It is a shift in expectations and beliefs.
How many people 5-10 years ago thought the Windows==computer? Compare that to now. That expectation is shifting, and that expectation is a core principle of the MS business model. It is a long-term growth threat in the sense that it takes time to build and when it reaches "the crisis stage" it is too late. Another aspect of the threat of OSS to MS is "freedom". Nor GNU freedom per-se but vendor freedom - choice. With the growth of Linux, came a fertile ground for other alternatives such as OpenOffice.org - and yes I am well aware of it's history. This led to the creation of a pressure valve. As MS predictably increased their punishment on those not paying the proper financial respect, the existence of this pressure valve allowed some to take it. As more did so the movement for "open document" standards grew more intense and larger. This triggered more people to even *think* about alternatives.
It's that thinking about alternatives that is the crucial chink in the MS business model. It is much like Afghanistan was to the USSR. The illusion that you *need* Microsoft has cracked, and chunks are falling off. That is the single largest threat to MS's business model. People will switch to other alternatives - even if they are proprietary ones for someone else.
The second major aspect of the OSS threat to MS (by way of their business model specifically) is what OSS enables. Consider the use of a supercomputer for something like SETI or protein folding. Now consider the use of distributed computing such as SETI At Home of Folding At Home. OSS enables the tapping of far more developers than can be managed by an organization. It also enables companies to rise quickly and establish dominance. One example is Google. Google would not have happened in a world w/o "a Linux". It would have been cost prohibitive. OSS enables that type of company to shoot up in a relatively few short years to absolute domination. It also enables competitors to work together.
This working together allows competitors of all sizes converge on a common underlying platform and provide for each of them to establish their specialties or "particular advantages". They share the otherwise unmanageable mass of talented programmers and supplement it with their own developers. OSS enabled OSX. Look at the significant turnaround in Mac usage with OSX - even before the Intel switch. This accelerates the shattering of the "Windows is the Computer" illusion which MS bases it's model on.
These are (some of) the major aspects of OSS that are the threat to MS. Not the specific products themselves but what affect of these products, their existence, has on the minds of the people using them. It may take a generational changeover but it is inevitable at this point.
Your problem is you are too busy looking at the bugs on the trees to understand you are looking at a rainforest. The "ecology" of the software and computing world is changing. The way we use the electronic world is changing and it is due to OSS, not MS. Facebook, MySpace, F
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Oh, that one again? It's 2008 — time to re-tire that M$ talking point. I suppose that Ken Thompson's presentation from 24 years ago is also not an endorsement of Open Source? Re-read A5-0264/2001 and European Commission technology strategy They're quite clear and the 2001 resolution even pre-dates the main start of MS EU-level lobbying efforts.
If M$ wanted to play, it's executives could decide to release product code as open source, but the company hasn't. Further, it can't. M$ products just aren't engineered for security. In fact, M$ code is so bad that it threatens US national security. So, although ditching M$ products won't in and of itself make your site secure, it's a necessary first step.
It's about security and for that you need open source.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.