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
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 >
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!
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
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
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.
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.
... 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?
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?
I think there's some misconceptions in a lot of places about what open source is good at. Open source is good at commoditizing software that 'everyone needs' like: e-mail, web browser, instant messenger, document processor, etc. It's also good in other areas, don't get me wrong, but I feel this is where the open source movement shines. Also, it isn't free. The only part of open source that is free is the part which is an infinite resource (copies of the software/code). Time and support is not free, which is why that costs money. *shrug* Oh well.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
One counter-example for Microsoft: Windows XP. RIP.
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.
That may be the case for many of the smaller (and undeniably useful) open source projects, but it seems like all of the big names ones started out as a commercial or internal project.
Open source to make makes the most sense anywhere a company benefits from having a specific product available enough to spend development effort on it, but where they are unable or unwilling to bring it to market as a commercial offering.
Sun gets a lot out of having OpenOffice exist, but they have no chance of having it be a real commercial competitor to Office.
Apache is a similar situation - a whole bunch of people want a stable webserver, but building one from the ground up is expensive and difficult, and selling it afterwards is even harder. So by making something open source you get other people to help you develop it at no cost to you.
To a corporation, it seems like much more of a super-improved version of an in-house solution competing with commercial solutions. The volunteer aspect of open source is amazing, it's great, it's wonderful - but a lot of the big development comes from people being paid to improve part of it because their company thought that improving the common solution would be a lot better than writing their own. Which largely invalidates MS's argument.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News