Slashdot Mirror
MS To Become Open Source Friendly Post Gates
ruphus13 writes "Now that Gates has 'retired' from Microsoft, ZDNet is speculating that Microsoft will become much more Open Source friendly. From the article, 'We already see quite a different approach to dealing with OSS and OSS companies from Sam Ramji's group [which is] doing a great job in establishing dialog,' said Rafael Laguna, CEO of Open-Xchange and a former marketing exec at SUSE Linux. 'With Gates' departure, the only mammoth remaining is Ballmer. With him away in a near future, Microsoft will definitely open up. They have to.'" Microsoft could become the world's largest open source company; they've certainly made some concessions to it lately.
It's a little soon (or late depending) but Where are my ponies?
Nazis to become Pro-Jew post Hitler.
Christians to become Pro-Reason post Apocalypse.
KKK to become Pro-Black post Hanging.
I have to wonder if the complexity of modern software is part of the big reason driving OSS, it would seem to me as our systems get faster, we can increase the complexity of our programs ad infintum, and at some point it 'breaks the camels back' and no business can hope to maintain something so large and unwieldy.
I'll believe it when I see it and not a moment before. With Microsoft's record anything short of unequivocal action should be treated with absolute scepticism.
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Ha ha ha ha
...
Ha ha ha ha
(catches breath)
Ha ha ha
the term, FUD originated with IBM, not Microsoft.
so i won't say it can't happen, but i'm not holding my breath either
WARNING! Incoming chairs detected!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
i would just love the day when i can just go to an MS website click a link download windows and be installing it when in minutes with out spending a dime.
it could happen and very like will here's how:
Microsoft has its fingers is A-LOT of things (X box, Zune, Internet Services) just cut one of them off:
Windows, windows should be open source just the OS that way with proper guidance from the whole things like security bug ans flaws in the code will be ironed out in no time.
its other applications could be rolled into its internet services (see google docs). and then Windows would be separate from MS and, MS could go about making money and forget about the OS market which is too unstable and Unwieldy. they like to say that they'll support there software LOL yea right if your pay extra and that ISN'T support
support wouldn't be needed if there wouldn't be problems with your software and there wouldn't be problems if every one could just look at it and fix it.
Also if JUST windows the OS and only the OS was made open source they could say goodbye to the Department of Justice for good and there anti-trust lawsuit woes would be over. Its kinda hard to have a monopoly when your not REALLY making money from it. (donations wouldn't count, but heck they probably wouldn't get one for awhile as many peeps as they have pissed off heh)
Also pirates would become a non-issue when your just giving away your stuff for free they won't be pirates any more.
I have one requests of Sam Ramji PLEASE make this world a better place and make your life much easier by spinning off the Windows OS into an open source organization, please.
P.S. There is a reason why Firefox stomps IE and That's because WE made it good - Windows can be good too if you let us (the end users) make it that way
...legal threats...
I am still waiting for that list of 235 patents.
... Microsoft _could_ become the world's largest open-source company...
... Apple _could_ become the world's largest producer of low-cost laptops...
... China _could_ become the world's largest anarchy (by population) ...
... Jupiter _could_ turn out to be the solar system's second Sun...
... Hell _could_ freeze over...
Ballmer has a severe case of verbal diarrhea, so we know how he feels about open source software. "Open source is a cancer...", "Linux infringes on over 200 Microsoft patents" (as-yet undisclosed patents, I might add). I can only see Microsoft going Open Source when they finally glue Ballmer's hand to a chair. Then he'll follow it out the window when he throws it.
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
why would MS open source their software? If they open source it that means it can be ported and people will be more likely to leaving windows if they can use their windows apps on another operating system. Open source code does nothing to benefit MS especially when 99.99% of their customers don't even know what source code is. Sure it would be nice, but I just don't think it stands a snowballs chance in hell.
Microsoft embracing open source would allow it to hurt them in the short term too. Remember how tolerable XP was? Well open source hacker A has made XP no longer need online registration. XP is free now! So is every Microsoft product. Maybe if the first hack everyone did wasn't to make the software free, companies may think about open sourcing their software to get a superior product in the long term. And you know what the second hack would be: Halo 3 cheats. With the whole code open to look through, cheating video games gets easy.
God spoke to me.
lots of people would drop linux like a hot potato if windows had the same level of openess. face it, windows is the standard and has all the vendor support and all the market share. if it was open, linux wouldn't have much of a reason to live.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Microsoft would first have to get over its "Not Invented Here" syndrome. One of the things that has driven Microsoft to try and achieve domination over all things software is the belief that everything they shit out is GOLD, they can do it better than everyone else, and the other guys's stuff is crap and deserves to fail. They pretty much believe that they're the center of the computing universe. Opening up and embracing FOSS would mean that other people are LOOKING AT and TOUCHING their code, submitting PATCHES, who do these people THINK they ARE?! This is high-quality Microsoft code, mister! Keep your grubby hands off of it! Oh god, I feel so unclean, the stink won't come off!!
I feel like Microsoft has taken some important steps towards playing nice with Open Source, and encouraging interoperability. Some examples include projects like IronPython, the WIX Installer tools, the fact that Silverlight actually supports at least one non-Windows platform, and the extremely detailed communications protocol documents recently released on MSDN. Sure, part of this has been for legal compliance reasons, and it turns out customers value things like interoperability.
I think there's a subtler reason that will become more apparent in the coming years. Microsoft needs to hire new employees if it wants to stay relevant, and it competes with the likes of Google and others for these new hires. It also happens that probably the very best college candidates are the ones that have contributed to open source projects. These are the students that went beyond what their curriculum required of them, and showed the drive to understand and contribute to a real-world project on their spare time. This kind of experience is valuable in a new hire, but many of them would be turned off by an anti open source attitude and look for more open source-friendly employers. In other words, to attract the best young minds (which is crucial to Microsoft's long term success), Microsoft is going to have to become much more friendly to open source projects.
Lots of people would spend the better part of a year reading and rewriting code. By the end of that year, wine would be nearly complete, Windows and Linux would support each other's binaries (probably with a patch to the linux kernel, as I'm sure Linus wouldn't include it with that little testing). and the more broken part of Windows would be fixed. It's hard to tell whether XOrg would include Windows code, or whether they'd fork off another project to support the API. The windows code would fragment into dozens of distros, almost immediately. Of these, maybe a couple would last longer than a half year. There would be lots of interpretations of how to fix or change the windows code to bring it more inline with the linux philosophy. Eventually, I think most people would come to accept Windows as a separate end-product, but that wouldn't stop some people from working on combining them.
It would be a couple of years before the first solid Linux distros started shipping which included support for Windows programs (and actually worked)
Check out my sysadmin blog!
it has been so long that i forgot about those 235 patents
"I don't pitch OpenSUSE Linux to my friends, i let Microsoft do it for me
Green envy and spam
With apologies to Dr "Suse", to the tune of "Green Eggs and Ham".
Linux can. Linux can. Use Linux.
That Linux can! That Linux can! I do not like that Linux can!
Do you like open sourcing plan?
I do not like that Linux can. I do not like the open sourcing plan.
Would you like to free source share?
I would not like to free source share. I would not like it anywhere. I do not like open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.
Would you like it very stable? Would you like it to enable?
I do not like it very stable. I do not like it to enable. I do not like to free source share. I do not like it anywhere. I do not like the open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.
Would you use it in a X-Box? Would you use it if it ROCKS?
Not on X-box. Not if it rocks. Not if very stable. Not to enable. I would not let them free source share. I would not let them anywhere. I would not allow open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.
Would you? Could you? In your biz? Use it! Use it! Here it is.
I would not, could not, in our biz.
You may like it. You will see. You may like it if it's free!
I would not, could not if its free. Not in our biz! It should never be!
I do not like it on the X-box. I do not like it that it rocks. I do not like it amongst our biz. I do not like it that it is. I do not like they free source share. I do not like that anywhere. I do not like that Linux can. I do not like you Linux man!
service! service! service! service! Could you, would you, as a service?
Not as a service! Not if it's free! Not in my biz! Man! Let not it be! I would not, could not, on a X-box. I could not, would not, if it rocks. I will not use it if its stable. I will not use it even to enable. I will not let them free source share. I will not let them anywhere. I do not like open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.
Say! if in copyleft? always free copyleft! Would you, could you, copyleft?
I would not, could not, in copyleft.
Would you, could you, why so nervous?
I would not, could not, I'm NOT nervous. Not as copyleft. Not as a service. Not in my biz. Not if it's free. I do not like that it can, you see. Not if it's stable. Not on X-box. Not to enable. Not if it rocks. I will not let them free source share. I do not like it anywhere!
You do not like open sourcing plan?
I do not like that Linux can.
Could you, would you use what we wrote?
I would not, could not, use what you wrote!
Would you, could you, to avoid your bloat?
I could not, would not, avoid bloat. I will not, will not, use what you wrote. I will not compete with them as a service. I will not because it makes us nervous. Not in our biz! Not if it's free! Not if it is! You let me be! I do not like it on the X-Box. I do not like it that it Rocks. I will not use it if it's stable. I do not like that it does enable. I do not like they free source share. I do not like it ANYWHERE I do not like open sourcing plan!I do not like that, Linux can.
You do not like it. So you say. Try it! Try it! And you may. Try it and you may, I say.
Man! If you will let me be, I will try it. You will see.
Say! I like open sourcing plan! I do! I like that, Linux can! And I would use it because it's stable. And I could use it to enable...
And I could charge for providing a service. And I could copyleft without being nervous. And in my biz. And still source free. For you can still charge for a service fee!
So I will use it on the networked X-box. And I will promote it because it ROCKS. And I will use it because it's stable. And I will use it to enable.
And I will use it here and there. Say! I can use it ANYWHERE!
I do so like open sourcing plan! Thank you! Thank you, Linux man!
By The Cat with the Red Hat
I would love to see MS programmers working on Linux, they would be freed of the crippling bureaucratic management that has done nothing but reduce their efforts to a thick, oily, billowing cloud of pure FAIL rolling across the fields of technology.
I worked with an ex-Microsoftie who'd been part of the NT kernel and SQL Server teams and he was incredibly knowledgeable and really sharp. I'm sure Microsoft has its share of loser programmers, but they are far outweighed by its loser management which is drenched with the stink of FAIL all the way to its chair-throwing. triple-Y chromosomed, chrome-domed top.
Ever been to MS Research? They are on to some really cool stuff. Too bad all the neat stuff they make never makes it into a shipping product, because it doesn't further upper management's goals of tyranny and world domination. Remember, the user experience is irrelevant to management, it's all about lock-in and unfair competition. If it was about making a better product, Vista would still be in development.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Calling Microsoft "M$", or microshaft, or microshit pretty much destroys any credibility your argument has.
They will certainly have to adopt the open source business model and make money by selling low margin services without any moat or competitive advantage, instead of selling highly demanded software programs on which they have a monopoly with obscene operatring margins. If they do it right, one day they will make as much money as Red Hat! http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=RHT&annual Hey, wait, they ARE making as much money in one day as red hat makes (in a year)!
That's Internet Bubble talk.
There's still no definitive evidence that there's a viable business model in an open source, software only company.
Most profitable "open source" companies are in the closed hardware business and just use Linux inside.
It's still an open question whether traditional companies who buy open source companies like MySQL will ever see their investment pay off. What is the balance sheet for Sun with respect to Star/Open Office?
If you had inside information that MS was going to make all their products open source, that would be a great time to sell the stock short.
It depends on your definition of "thriving". Without Wintel (or some other standard platform), most of us couldn't even afford a computer.
Obviously Crays and Connection Machines were never going to be home computers.
Although the design legacy of the x86 still sucks today, their really isn't a microprocessor significantly faster. Also keep in mind that Windows NT ran on the Alpha as well as x86 and the marketplace couldn't care less.
It destroys the credibility of the person but -- thankfully - not the argument :)
So there's actually very little of the company whose business model is compatible with open source licensing. That's where you'll see change, if it happens -- not in Bill Gates leaving Microsoft.
Actually, Microsoft is quite compatible with open source. There is a lot of open source built right into the OS. The integration of data with internet programs has allowed for the open sourcing of your address books, and vulnerabilities in the mail and web clients have led to the open sourcing of plenty of personal data.
It did, however, answer your point:
There's no evidence of change
It's not conclusive evidence, but it is evidence.
Also:
Well, they'd need to move to an OSS compatible business model for starters but right now they're still mostly about selling boxes of software.
Seems to me they get much of their money from hardware vendors (like Dell) and from large corporations (volume licenses). How many people do you know who've actually bought a boxed copy of Windows?
And because of that, it seems like neither of those customers would stop buying from them if their product could be had for free. After all, Dell pays Canonical for support...
Just guessing... maybe the secret is that Microsoft doesn't actually offer any support?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I didn't say anything about a lack of profit at Red Hat, I just stated that the day may come when corporations ask themselves why they should pay for something that is available for free.
You clearly have no idea what Red Hat's model is. We don't sell bits on a CD. We sell support. We sell the ability to call us and (in some cases) talk to the original kernel developer who wrote the code. I'm sorry but support is not "something that is available for free" to any user of Linux.
Does Red Hat have any brand new product ideas that aren't part of the Linux OS that they'd like to spend a few years developing and release version 1.0 under the GPL license?
Yes, absolutely dozens of products. Off the top of my head, Red Hat MRG (developed for years and just released, GPL, version 1.0 last week), ClusterSuite, LVM and all the Sistina stuff, FreeIPA, all the ET virtualization tools, all my stuff, virtio, JBoss (bought, already open source), RHN (recently open sourced), Netscape Directory Server (bought and open sourced), and probably 10 more that I can't even remember now.
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images