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."
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.
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
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
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?
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.
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.
Reliance on proprietary MS stuff has hurt some companies in the past. Others don't want the added expense.
Others want the freedom from onerous licensing headaches. MS attacked its own customers with licensing audits years ago. Many shops they audited were compliant (or mostly compliant), but MS raked them over the coals anyway. How much IT time do you want to devote to tracking licensing?
How are you going to handle virtualization as part of your IT roadmap (if it's not already, it probably will be soon). You'd better be able to solve the problem of licensing your OS and apps (many with diverging licensing schemes; per user, per concurrent user, per physical chassis, per cpu socket, per core
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
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.
Although that's the EU's position I don't think that you should take it as an endorsement of Open Source. Rather I think it's being used as an opportunity for the EU to 'stick it to MS'.
If there were any European based closed source solutions that they could recommend (presumably while securing themselves a nice kickback) they would. Sadly there isn't, which leaves Open Source (and primarily Linux) as the 'enemy of my enemy'.
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.
1. try & do something on your computer
2. find you can't
3. write software to do it
4. use it
5. profit
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
Unfortunately I work for a corporation that is nearly 100% Microsoft. There is a very blatant fear of open-source around here mostly due to a lack of knowledge or even curiosity about what OSS is or how it works. People are familiar with Microsoft even though it's buggy, with constant problems that cannot be solved or require 3rd party work arounds because it's not like we can just ask Microsoft for a specific feature or pay a guy to open up the source code and fix this one issue for us. They're content to stick with it and hope the next auto-update will fix it because it's what they know and it's what's main stream. OSS, GNU/Linux is something that they don't know all that much about but Microsoft says it's "a cancer" as Bill Gates him self once put it and we trust Bill Gates so it must be true. I've been pushing various open-source solutions to big problems we've had for almost 6 years to no avail and it's made me a bit of a joke to some people here. I look at it as a perfect example of Microsoft FUD at work. This is exactly the type of environment they are trying to cultivate and they're doing a good job. In light of this and the very long and diverse history of stealing, bullying and deception that Microsoft has engaged in since day one of it's existence, I find it very difficult to believe that anything they do is for the benefit of any community but their own. If someone from Microsoft is suddenly all concerned for the financial well-being of OSS developers that makes me concerned. To me all that means is they've changed tactics and I'm glad FOSS attorneys are keeping their eyes open.
The problem is with #3, #4 and #5.
#3 costs a lot of time. And time is money. If you make 60k a year; an 'hour' of your time is worth $30 dollars an hour. Writing/testing/documenting an application is not a trivial task.
So, you start a project and work on it for six months...it's very reasonable to assume you'd have invested $20,000 dollars into the project.
When it's finished, you get to #4. You get to use the software. You've spent $20,0000 dollars of your time and effort building the application! But yes - you get to use it.
#5 - Profit? That's a bit of a joke.
The traditional/old school software model would be that a company or individual fronts the development cost - the $20,000 dollars, and the hundreds/thousands of users each pay $40 dollars to use their copy.
Let's say this fictional software will be used heavily by 2,000 users.
With a traditional sales model - each user pays $40 dollars and gets to use the software. The guy who wrote it fronted $20k to develop it, and would earn back $80k. Of course, there'd be a lot of overhead, packaging, shipping, advertising, etc, etc - but the developer would walk away a nice chunk of change in the bank. Each user would pay $40 dollars for a quality product.
In OSS - one guy fronts all the time and effort - $20,000 worth. Then 2,000 people download it and use it for free.
It's a GREAT deal for the end-users; but not a great deal for the developer. And there are a lot more users than developers; and if Linux continues to become more user friendly, more and more of the Linux users are NOT going to be developers. They won't know how/won't care/won't want to learn how to write the software they want.
"And some FOSS developers do it because they fervently want Microsoft and similar companies to suffer economically, as payback for the pain they have caused, the crimes they continue to commit and the freedom they attempt to take away. For those people, no amount of money could replace the pleasure of driving Microsoft et. al. into the ground, salting the earth and sticking a sign there saying, "so shall it be to all such tyrants"."
And what "crimes" has microsoft continued to commit? I can find linux and many other operating systems at the store to purchase, so they are no longer a monopoly (a forced one, at least). I can also find at least 4 or 5 different office clones and many other OSS alternatives.
If OSS was better constructed and built for the average end-user rather than programmers...there would be no tyrants.
I also find it funny, because the more FOSS developers give away their stuff for free, the less jobs there will be for developers in the future. My company could have hired at least 2 or 3 other developers, but because we can get most of what we need for free, we only have one.
As OSS apps get better and better, this will continue to happen. What will be left over is code-money jobs that don't require actual engineering..but just the ability to make changes to an existing application. This will mean less salary overall because development jobs will require less skill.
I'm not talking about 'opportunity cost'. Opportunity cost is saying that for every hour you spend doing X, the opportunity cost is what you COULD have had, had you spent your time doing Y.
.01% of the population - you *can't* get money for it. The fair market value for me watching a movie is $0 dollars. But as a developer, the fair market value for my time spent writing code *IS* greater than $0. Whether it's $10 an hour for $50 an hour, people are willing to pay me to write code.
Right - so the opportunity cost of watching TV for 3 hours is whatever you could get paid for 3 hours of work.
I'm *not* talking about that.
I'm not saying people shouldn't have free time or do things that don't earn them money.
What I *am* saying is that, unlike 99% of 'free-time' activities that people do, writing code is something people get paid to do. If you are a developer who can write code well enough to produce a oss application; odds are, you could do that same thing and earn money.
So, if I enjoy working out, hiking, water skiing, watching movies, and writing code...
Nobody is going to pay me to work out (unless I'm a pro athlete or bodybuilder)
Nobody is going to pay me to water ski (unless I'm a pro water-skier)
Nobody is going to pay me to watch movies (unless I'm a famous critic)
But, for anyone who can write an application, they can almost certainly be earning money for that activity. Writing code is something with a fairly high 'fair-market' value.
So, unlike all of those other fun activities; unless you are an amazing, phenomenal, top
If I work on an oss, I'm doing virtually the exact same thing for free, as I could do for money. It's the same activity that I get paid to do, but I do it for free and give away the fruits of my labor. That's, basically, the OSS model.
And like the article said, a lot of serious developers avoid that model because they feel like it isn't 'economically fair'.
And it isn't.
I can spend 10 hours working on a commercial product and get paid....or I can work on an oss and get nothing.
You can argue that my work on the oss project should be more enjoyable and so it doesn't have a 'cost' associated with it. But the fact remains - work on a commercial project for 10 hours and you have $$$. Work on an oss product, and you don't.
Writing code is enjoyable for me, but that doesn't mean I want to work for free. And when I look for part-time gigs, I *never* see anyone willing to pay me to develop an oss application.
My point is, working on oss is akin to donating to charity...some people do it and it's nice and all; but it mostly helps other people and most people would rather help themselves.
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.
Take a first year economics course and see if your position on this changes. Pay special attention to the concept of opportunity cost.
If you can sell your time for $100/hour, then for every hour you don't make at least $100, you're losing money. That's basic economic fact.
However, aside from neurotic workaholics, most people do not spend their limited existence on this planet maximizing their income. A lot of us choose to spend our time doing other things besides earning money. But that doesn't mean the time we spend away from work cannot be given a rational dollar value.
As a lawyer, I'd like to follow up on your lawyer example: if I can bill my time for $350/hour and I decide to spend two hours eating a long leisurely lunch with friends, then the meal has indeed cost me $700 + cost. My friends don't realize the full costs (and I don't tell them), but quality time with quality friends is worth more than money to me.