Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Acknowledges Open Source As a Bigger Threat Than Google

Posted by Soulskill on from the i've-been-waiting-for-you-obi-wan dept.

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."

36 of 376 comments (clear)

  1. In Other Words.... by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, microsoft says "Free software might lead to lesser sales" and "Paid Alternatives not as attractive as Free ones!"

    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 ... and what would be a bigger threat to Microsoft - Alternative OS or ... adsense. Hmmm...

    1. Re:In Other Words.... by Flamora · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed, this does feel like a bit of stating the obvious. I think what they miss about FOSS is that at least some of the developers in the community do it as a hobby or for practice (or even resume padding so they can get a paid development job); compensation isn't that much of a sticking point for them.

    2. Re:In Other Words.... by xanalogical · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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".

    3. Re:In Other Words.... by nuzak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, and most of those people don't actually write a single line of code.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    4. Re:In Other Words.... by GeffDE · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hear the "Time is Money" argument a lot and in most cases it is complete BS. Your analysis assumes that said hobbyist programmer is working on their project instead of working for pay (i.e. only 40 hours a week is worked on both work and the software project). The math is $60000/yr / (40 hrs/wk * 52 wks/yr) = $28/hr. However, even though I work 40 hours a week, that leaves 128 hours of that week left unfilled. Assuming 8 hours of sleep a night, that is 78 hours of awake time that I am not working. That is a lot of time. In fact, it is almost twice another full 40-hour work week. So a six month OSS project, worked on only in spare "hobby" time costs...$0.

      Time is not money. The work week is (nominally) 40 hours because if you start to work more than that regularly, there are many ill effects (increased stress, poor health, INSANITY). In the scenario outlined in the GP, the OSS project is a hobby: it is something that a person can do in their spare time, when they feel like it etc. It doesn't cut into their yearly income because they would not be making more money if they were not doing it; it does not cost $20,000 unless you assign some sort of billable rate to that person. Using that reasoning and the fact that the average billing rate for lawyers is roughly $350, a nice fancy 2-hour dinner for a lawyer costs $700 plus whatever the restaurant charges.

      Free software is still a great deal for a hobbyist developer because they are doing it for fun and they derive satisfaction and joy out of doing it. For professional OSS devs, it is still a great deal because they already tend to be paid by big companies. That entire post is how any big-ass-backwards blue chip company sees OSS: those companies don't get open source and obviously neither do you.

      --
      It has been a nervous year, with people beginning to feel like Christian Scientists with appendicitis.
    5. Re:In Other Words.... by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Insightful
      In OSS - one guy fronts all the time and effort - $20,000 worth. Then 2,000 people download it and use it for free.

      Umm, the vast bulk of contributions to FOSS projects are from companies like IBM, Red Hat, Novell and Sun.

      They've just worked out that it's cheaper to push a few coders into FOSS projects that are non-core but valuable to their business than it is to pay the MS tax for eternity.

      Let's face it, computer users have given Microsoft more than 150 billion dollars in the last decade. If they had co-operated and contributed a small fraction of that to a community project, they'd have saved money and got a lot better tool. Plenty of other businesses are starting to come to the same conclusion.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    6. Re:In Other Words.... by GeffDE · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your unwillingness to entertain the specifics is why you didn't get the lawyer analogy; I am stymied why my calculation (which agrees with your $30/hr calculation) was deemed worthless though. However, I worked my calculation out in full, whereas you seemingly pulled numbers out of thin air. Moving on, I will reiterate why the lawyer analogy was fair and I will again try to show you why your idea of "Billable Hours Applied to Free Time" is just wrong.

      In your previous post, you stated that, even when not working, the concept of billable hours still applies. That is how you derived all of the costs of developing OSS. However, if how much you make per hour to do your job is how much every hour of your day is worth, which is what you are implying, then any two hours of a lawyer's time not spend lawyering costs him $700. That is the equivalent of you saying that "For someone making $X/yr, their time is worth $Y an hour." What is insane is saying that every hour of yours is worth $Y. Only the hours you are doing your job are worth $Y. Any hour in which you would not ordinarily be working is not worth money; there is no conversion. If no one will pay you for what you are doing, then your time spent doing it is not worth any money. I brought up dinner as an example of how ridiculous your idea was; I am glad that you agree that it is ridiculous.

      My argument is that anything you do in your free time does not have an inherent monetary worth. If you enjoy writing code and decide to write code for your own purposes, that has no inherent value. If you want to write code for yourself, you cannot be expected to be paid for it. But that is, underneath all the blustering, what you seem to be expecting. I was not calling for you to do your job for free; I was calling for you to expect to do things you do for yourself for free. To rewrite one of your phrases so it has some truth: "Every hour I spend in front of my computer writing code COULD have a value." If you need/want something and you write it for yourself on your own time, it did not cost you anything and it has no inherent monetary value. If you can convince someone to pay you for the fruits of your labors, then it has monetary value.

      From my previous analysis, there are roughly 78 waking hours a week that are not spent doing a 40-hour/wk job. That extra time in everybody's day is their own. If you decide to spend that flying a kite, your time is worth the enjoyment you derive from the kite flying. If you decide to write code, your time is worth the satisfaction you derived from coding and any money you could derive from the fair market price of the code you produced. If you spent 15 hours writing a new Notepad, do you think you're entitled to $450? Do you think you will ever see $450? No, not if you're a reasonable person. It is very true that you could have spent the time making more money, but what I was trying to say before is that many people don't want more money than they want more time to do what they want; a corollary to that is that some people find hacking on a software project fun.

      People who do OSS *donate* the product of their time and for high quality code, that is not free. For a new Notepad, it is free. The point I tried to make before was that most people who do OSS and don't get paid contribute *for fun* not because they want to donate something. Just because you are a greedy bastard who feels that everything coming from the tips of your fingers is cashmoney does not mean that others are the same. That is also why those people contribute to OSS and you don't.



      Also, seeing how this has tied up some of your precious $30/hour time in front of your computer, you can forward me my bill.

      --
      It has been a nervous year, with people beginning to feel like Christian Scientists with appendicitis.
  2. FUD FUD FUD FUD. FUDDITY FUD. FUDDITY FUD. by zifferent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 > /dev/null
    1. Re:FUD FUD FUD FUD. FUDDITY FUD. FUDDITY FUD. by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      [abandoware] would often be prevented by making it easy for companies to pay the developers directly

      Have Microsoft still not discovered the intartubes yet? OmniHyperMegaCorp can't email dev@eloper.com and ask if he'd like some money in return for continuing development? Because most FOSS devs that I know (not all, but most) of would spit out their cheetos with joy at being offered bankable appreciation for their time and effort. We're not all smelly hippies who hate money and wear hand knitted nettle underpants.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:FUD FUD FUD FUD. FUDDITY FUD. FUDDITY FUD. by upside · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is everyone so blinkered they always assume Microsoft employees are evil and anti-OSS? I don't think this guy is being negative, rather he's saying OSS could get an additional boost from extra payments.

      Indeed I've come across plenty of projects on Sourceforge that look promising but haven't been maintained for years, and others that could do with an additional boost.

      OTOH, while I don't know of statistics, it seems to me certain projects are getting support as long as they make donations easy, for example I recall Tobi Oetiker's (RRDTool and MRTG) "thanks to" list being quite long. :)

      If you want to slam the guy for this statement, compare with proprietary software from a company that goes under. If your vendor disappears you are completely out of luck, whereas with OSS you can at least hire a consultant to help you out.

      --
      I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
    3. Re:FUD FUD FUD FUD. FUDDITY FUD. FUDDITY FUD. by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, but why SHOULDN'T a company just pay M$ to take care of 95% of their IT needs? Many do. For many others, MS products simply don't do what's required, or can't replace what's already there, whether it is proprietary or open.

      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 ... ) across multiple physical and virtual machines. If I clone a MS OS in VMware on one box, how many times do I pay for that OS? What if I clone it onto a different physical box? What if I clone it on a different box and shut down the original, so I only have one concurrent instance? If I have to worry about licensing when I move or create a virtual server, how is that affecting my agility as an IT organization? How is it affecting my bottom line as a company?

      Not trolling, just asking the FLOSS freaks if they can come up with something better than "Microsoft is bad, mkaay?" The first 2 words of that sentence offer a sharp contrast to the rest of it, AC.
      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    4. Re:FUD FUD FUD FUD. FUDDITY FUD. FUDDITY FUD. by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 5, Informative

      Companies have been "doing for themselves" for decades. They come to realize that something is a critical part of their business and they take ownership of it. They take on the ability or responsibility to maintain the system themselves.
      Therein lies the fundamental difference between open or paid source vs closed source. We have a number of issues with our > $100,000 accounting system that Microsoft simply refuses to fix. If we could buy the source and fix it ourselves, we would. If we could download the source and release patches, we would. Unfortunately, we bought a Microsoft product and to them the "There is a (painful) workaround, so we aren't going to fix it in this version" answer is good enough for _them_. Our opinion on the matter is quite irrelevant.

      -Ellie
    5. Re:FUD FUD FUD FUD. FUDDITY FUD. FUDDITY FUD. by DeadTOm · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  3. No all we need... by HappySmileMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:No all we need... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, maybe Google didn't do it, but someone released an OS bery, very similar to 'GoogleOS'. It even includes Google Apps.

      --
      My blog
  4. Gee, I'm touched ... by yelvington · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

  5. One reason compensation is not important by poeidon1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:One reason compensation is not important by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      bacause most developers do it because of their personal interest.
      Correct. Every open source project I've ever started or written is a result of a need -- an "itch" as ESR puts it in Homesteading the Noosphere. Necessity is the other of invention.

      When I needed a GUI applet for my wife to monitor ink levels and run cleaning cycles on our Epson Stylus printer and none of the existing applications out there did the trick just right, I wrote Stylus Toolbox. Big surprise. I don't care if I ever get a dime in compensation, because I've already been compensated -- by the satisfaction obtained from the joy of software development and by the actual application itself, which I needed and still use today.

      Not that I wouldn't gladly accept monetary donations -- but I'd rather get donations of equipment (mainly printers) for development and testing of Stylus Toolbox and/or escputil. Also, developers who would like to help me update the alignment procedure for newer Stylus CXX and Stylus Photo printers would be appreciated. Thanks.

      --
      My blog
  6. Oh? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Currently there are perfectly good projects that have been abandoned by their developers despite being used by large corporations.
    So, uh, which projects would those be, Mr. Ozzie? Because from where I sit, the major open source projects I've seen in use by businesses tend to be ones with foundations or for-profit companies behind them -- OpenOffice.org, Linux, Mozilla Firefox/Thunderbird/Sunbird, Apache, Samba, MySQL, etc. If any parts of, say, a major Linux distro are 'abandoned' by their developers, I think you'll find that due to their open source nature, someeone else will pick up the reigns. Possibly even a for profit-company such as the distro maker.

    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
    1. Re:Oh? by slim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If any parts of, say, a major Linux distro are 'abandoned' by their developers, I think you'll find that due to their open source nature, someeone else will pick up the reigns. Possibly even a for profit-company such as the distro maker. You buried the most important part deep in your paragraph. If you're a large corporation using OSS code that's been abandoned, you're in a much better situation than if you were using someone else's proprietary code that's abandoned.
  7. No doubt by csoto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  8. They're just missing the point, completely by Enleth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:They're just missing the point, completely by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      F/OSS developers aren't working for free, unless you think that nothing apart from money has value.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
  9. Money? by warlorddagaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

  10. Slashdot summary is misleading... by bomanbot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  11. OK Microsoft by harry666t · · Score: 4, Funny

    """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.

  12. "First they ignore you... by brunoacf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

    Gandhi.

  13. Re:Big Suprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Surprise has two Rs in it. Did you know that before?

  14. Abandoned projects? by pesc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  15. "Only a fraction" by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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. And those thousands of developers are paid a fraction of what the high-rolling executives are making. The developers' final reward is to see their jobs leave on a flight for an overseas destination.

    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.
  16. Re:Blind capitalism by bberens · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  17. It's the law by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... 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:

    • develop open source encryption tools
    • use encryption
    • provide training in encryption
    • closed source
    • develop and use open source
    • provide training in open source

    Source: A5-0264/2001

    For all new European projects:

    • open source is the preferred development platform
    • open source is the preferred deployment platform
    • support open, well-documented standards is required

    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.
  18. Pot calling the kettle black by g2devi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One counter-example for Microsoft: Windows XP. RIP.

  19. Re:False Dichotomy by citog · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, Google uses Open Source to power their business. Their business model i.e. Google the company is based on proprietary methods and solutions.

  20. Looked at TFA by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  21. Microsoft for "economic fairness"? by argoff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >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.

    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 ... 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.

    It is Microsoft who has deprived us of that benefit with their constant licensing fees and constant vendor lock in, not open source.