Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft's Open Source Guru Faces Tough Fight

coondoggie writes "Microsoft's Sam Ramji is like a turkey knocking on Thanksgiving's door. Ramji has the unenviable task of stretching his neck out into the open source world as Microsoft's representative. On top of it, his employer has preheated the oven with years of hubris, sleights of hand and broken promises. Ramji's Sisyphean task was evident last week in Portland at the Open Source Conference (OSCon) and will likely be fuel for chatter at next week's LinuxWorld gathering in San Francisco."

33 of 432 comments (clear)

  1. So welcome them in.. by suso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft is good at winning the game when people are agressive towards them. Which I know its very easy to get hostile towards them. But they are somewhat lost when another group is their host and they are not in control. So we should be welcoming, give them a drink of the kool-aid and treat them like one of the gang. Its going to be hard and we'll have to keep an eye out for deception, but I think we should start playing nicer with them and hope that they do the same. Perhaps Microsoft would see the light and become friendlier to open source and open standards. Unlikely, but so was getting Excel working under Linux through Wine if you asked someone 10 years ago.

    In the end, open source is simply a better model for software development and its a lot more impervious to threats than proprietary software is. Businesses just don't get that. In a business, the software focus is on making money. In open source, the software focus is on quality and empowering the end user. In the end, open source and the user will win. Heck, we're already winning, Microsoft is interested in open source (regardless of the reasons).

    Don't throw arrows. Be diplomatic.

    1. Re:So welcome them in.. by snl2587 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't throw arrows. Be diplomatic.

      You're right, that would be ineffective without a bow. Throw spears instead.

    2. Re:So welcome them in.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think we should start playing nicer with them and hope that they do the same.

      That's what Neville Chamberlain thought, too.

    3. Re:So welcome them in.. by suso · · Score: 3, Insightful

      These analogies fail on me and you both obviously thought you were clever, and they were easy to make. However they are just wrong.

      Open source doesn't really have an hierarchy "to take". Its obvious that traditional software businesses are having trouble adjusting to the new paradigm. Its amusing to watch these businesses try to fight it. If you want to use war analogies, it more like Japan facing the atomic bomb. What could it do against such a new force it new nothing about?

    4. Re:So welcome them in.. by suso · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So we should be welcoming, give them a drink of the kool-aid and treat them like one of the gang.

      That's what they want, man. I say let them rot in the courner.

      No! They are not expecting to like the kool-aid. They are expecting to get their foot in the door and have some leverage to dominate the open source community. I realize that. But we have to give them enough kool-aid so that they start liking it.

    5. Re:So welcome them in.. by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dear mods, this isn't funny. It's the correct approach. When your enemy agrees to play nice, playing nice back doesn't mean assume they are friendly, it just means play nice.

      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
    6. Re:So welcome them in.. by timmarhy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "In open source, the software focus is on quality"

      No, it's on building your own project which replicates another piece of software exactly but under another license or with some tiny change. Then pissing everyone off on your mailing list and having 3 groups of developers fork on you, each taking the direction you "should" have taken. after the ego cools off all the mini projects release hacked scripts to allow migration, which no one can get to work. When users complain you tell them to RTFM, and that it's all very simple and if they don't like it they can use MS products (which they end up doing)

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    7. Re:So welcome them in.. by EvanED · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the end, open source is simply a better model for software development and its a lot more impervious to threats than proprietary software is. Businesses just don't get that. In a business, the software focus is on making money. In open source, the software focus is on quality and empowering the end user.

      Or... more likely they do get it. (At least to the extent that you reveal in your post.) OSS is a better model for software development, but that doesn't mean it's a better business model. A business's goal isn't (and at least a large part of me says "shouldn't be") quality and empowering the end user except to the extent that they make business sense, and it is (and "should be") to make money. (There are limits to the "should" parts of that; e.g. violating the law or human rights or something like that.)

      So is closed or open a better business model? I have no idea. But I suspect neither do you.

    8. Re:So welcome them in.. by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is one of those posts where "insightful" and "troll" both apply.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    9. Re:So welcome them in.. by moro_666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Stop throwing around arrows, spears, chairs :)

      Throw a BS-Filter :)

        Seriously, every time one of the big closed source giants come around to open source, the find a "rebel" from their ranks, the person looks like the ultimate "open source fanatic" from in their own ranks.

        Usually the person is a sleek, charming bs-machine. His goal is not to get the company into a open-source-everyone-happy state, he's a peacemaker, a showman. They tell you how much the company wants to move toward open source and how hard it is to do it. They give out empty promises and while they are at it, they actually "consume" you :)

        Stop wasting your time on empty hopes about them coming to opensource world and taking you to nirvana. Get to the nirvana yourself, you'll beat them for sure.

        Resistance is futile, You will be assimilated -- this did not come from any borgs from out of space, this came from microsoft, oracle, corel and god knows whom else.

        my -0x42 cents.

      --

      I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.
    10. Re:So welcome them in.. by loganrapp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe you're right, unless that long time schoolyard bully is a multinational corporation and we were fucking adults.

    11. Re:So welcome them in.. by terryducks · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I've been fucking adults for a long time, actually, since I was an adult. :p

      Guys, you are missing the point. Microsoft, a corporation, has repeatedly shown that they have their own interests in mind (i.e. 1st goal of the corp is to make a profit). Their altruistic side is severely lacking in most aspects.

      I may "play nice" but I'll never trust them again.

    12. Re:So welcome them in.. by mspohr · · Score: 3, Insightful
      And I mean equally, because the inactive team's coordinator also localized Microsoft products.

      Could be that Microsoft is still paying him to keep the KDE group 'inactive' and to fight off people like you who want to help.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    13. Re:So welcome them in.. by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe, but consider, hypothetically of course, the good that could be done if MS' interests could be aligned with ours.

      The secret to good diplomacy is to make others want the same things you want, to show them that your way works for them. You will *never* get someone to stop acting in their own best interests, but you may get them to realize that your way *is* in their best interests.

      Think about it: why do you use FOSS? Because you consider it to be in your best interest. Why do people write software and give it away? Because in some way it's in their best interests.

      Altruism isn't a permanent motivation in the vast majority of cases, and it isn't a business motivation at all. However, if you consider altruism in the equation while determining how to go about achieving your goals, you wind up with something like FOSS -- helping others while you help yourself. There's no reason that your business's primary methodology has to be absolute winner-take-all cutthroat competition.

      That's the thing MS and lots of other companies don't understand. FOSS doesn't mean giving away the store. It just means going about things differently and having a different mindset when you make your plans. It's possible to have a thriving business while peacefully coexisting with your competitors.

      That said, it's incumbent on MS to stop the cutthroat tactics and move into peaceful coexistence mode. It's not us who are trying to use the legal system to wipe them out. We're not Goliath in this story -- we're David with stones and slingshot in hand. If Goliath wants to talk peace, that's fine, but he'd better put down the sword first, AND the dagger he's got hidden in his robe, and start talking sincerely.

  2. militant, defiant, rebellious by ndnspongebob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We are open source, we accept all code but we are also a community. This community must be respected. Corporate entities will run all over us and then want to be friends. Must we lie down and take it or resist and be defiant because we are the movement? I know what I am saying is controversial but I say it with a reason. Bow once and bow a thousand more times. Microsoft is the main enemy, defeat him and we will conquer all. I may be in the few, but I say rise because the time is now and it is time to strike.

    1. Re:militant, defiant, rebellious by plantman-the-womb-st · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wow, no idea what you are trying to say, it spanks of rabble rousing. In the end, what exactly does open source deliver? That is the question. It's being asked by a lot of people. And we as a community need an answer, which we don't actually have. A philosophy is not an answer. The proles will look to the MS shill for an answer. The question should be, what will we give him to take back, beads and trinkets?

      --
      Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
    2. Re:militant, defiant, rebellious by FireFury03 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      what exactly does open source deliver?

      It depends who you are:

      End users:
      It provides software at no cost. Now, some users may need support, which will cost them, but the chances are they don't need support on *all* their software (i.e. they might want to be able to phone someone up when the operating system breaks, but they are happy with having no support for their word processor.

      Also, my experience as a software developer tells me that Open Source _code_ is usually of higher quality than proprietary code - it may not be as obvious to the end user as it is to a developer but I do honestly believe that in (most but not all) cases Free software is more secure, stable and feature-rich.

      Another bonus, especially for businesses using the software, is that if you find that you need a feature you can go and contract a developer to write it for you instead of being held to ransom (or ignored) by the original vendor you got the software from.

      Small to mid-sized computer businesses:
      Businesses can use Free software to provide solutions to their customers - they can make money by selling the services, rather than the software.

      For example, if a customer asks for some kind of system you have 3 options:
      1. Write the system from scratch.
      2. Licence a proprietary system.
      3. Use a Free system.
      Now, (1) is probably going to be a lot more expensive, so that is out. (2) and (3) are more or less comparable at this point, so long as they both have the features you need. Some time later the customer can come back and ask for some new feature - if you originally picked (2) then you may be screwed, whereas if you picked (3) you can add the feature and charge the customer for your time.

      The "services" business model has, since the dawn of time, also had that subscription model that MS wants.

      Huge software monopolies (e.g. Microsoft)
      This is a lot more problematic - the Free software business model prohibits the abuse of a monopoly position, purely because someone else is always free to compete with an identical (or improved) product but with a lower cost or more favourable contractual terms. If you are producing Free software, you can't just put all the competition out of business and then stop improving your product for years (much as MS did for things like IE) - you will always have competition and staying ahead of the competition takes constant effort, but is good for the consumers as they see constant improvements instead of stagnation.

      If Microsoft completely embrace the Free software business model, they _will_ lose their monopoly position, so I can't see them doing that until they have already seriously lost that position anyway. Similarly, from a business perspective they need to be careful with interoperability since they don't want to promote the idea of replacing Microsoft products with competing ones. But what they do want is to enable Microsoft products to interoperate with the competing products in situations where people would be using the competing products anyway (and thus would avoid the MS products if they didn't interoperate).

      Microsoft's monopoly position sucks for MS's competitors, MS's customers and MS's competitors' customers (who struggle to interoperate with MS's software and customers). However, their monopoly position is good for _them_ and they will protect it at all costs - to do so, they need to walk a very fine line.

      However, even if MS decided to 100% embrace Free software (which, as mentioned above, they won't), they would still have a hard fight convincing the Free software community to accept them. This is because they have spent years time and time again making promises to the Free software community and then stabbing them in the back at the first opportunity - it will take them a lot of time and effort to prove that this isn't just another example of this behaviour (if indeed it isn't).

      A philosophy is not an answer.

      Pure philosophy is not the answer, but that philosophy has survived for a long time because it gives real, solid benefits for a lot of people.

  3. Re:Shades of Gray? by digitalunity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hasn't Microsoft trained us over time with a reverse skinner box approach, by offering cooperation and failing to deliver on the open principles they committed to?

    Microsoft has earned the negative attitude they receive with years of practice, hard work and dedication. It's like posting at -1. It takes time to dig yourself out of it and Microsoft can't just create a new account and start over.

    If Ramji really wants to be taken seriousyl, he should be prepared to be received poorly for some time to come and take that in stride.

    --
    You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
  4. Re:Dear Know-Nothing by clang_jangle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, FOSS is *so* far behind that MS is desperately throwing money around trying to get a foot in the FOSS door. "Dear Know-Nothing", indeed!

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
  5. Keep your friends close... by Iamthecheese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am not a Linux kind of guy, but if I were, I would want Microsoft to be as open, honest, and helpful as I can get them.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  6. Don't be a Nevile Chamberlain. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Insightful
    So far, we've won the game because they've been aggressive to us. And this is not talking about the distant past, the OOXML debacle is still going on and as far as I can tell they committed real, actionable fraud in connection with it which has gone unprosecuted.

    I think we should fight Microsoft, not Sam Ramji. We should just make it clear that Sam works for a company with a monopoly conviction and a long record of dirty fighting.

    Microsoft's joining Apache, to a great extent, as an anti-Linux play. They still can't stand the GPL, it's too fair for them, but they think they can take some of the oxygen from Linux by being more of a platform for Apache-style software. And the Apache license lets them "embrace and enhance".

    Don't give up now, folks. Only your vigilance and your willingness to point out when Microsoft plays dirty tricks will keep them from getting away with even more of that.

    Bruce

  7. Re:Shades of Gray? by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sure there's tons of really great people working at Microsoft. It's easy to put a kind face on Microsoft when you think of the examples of nice people who work there. But when it comes to business, Microsoft is not that nice guy.

  8. Oh Poor Ramji by twmcneil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Poor, poor Ramji. I feel so sorry for him. Getting his head cut off and all. Boo Hoo. TFA is pure Microsoft FUD. Yeah, Microsoft is trying to get along with Open Source. Sure.

    Microsoft wants to kill Open Source and don't ever forget that.

    Hey Ramji, after all your employer has done to promote Open Source like backing SCO and buying off ISO, why don't you just crawl under a rock someplace and quit wasting our air. Just go cash that big check and live in some kind of peace and harmony with your bought-off ass.

    --
    "The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
    1. Re:Oh Poor Ramji by EvanED · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, to be fair, a lot of MSR stuff isn't available. A few researchers there put out a paper that talked about recording a trace from a binary's execution, one of the applications of which was a time-traveling debugger a la the Omnipotent Debugger for Java. I looked, but I couldn't find it online.

      MSR is probably the best industry research lab in CS (at least that publishes; Google I'm sure has one that rivals it, but Google rarely publishes) on par with a darn good university, but I wouldn't call them OSS-friendly.

  9. Re:Shades of Gray? by ianare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unfortnutely the good actions of 'the little people' are completely overshadowed by the greed and arrogance of the top decision makers. As with many global companies, and countries for that matter, most of the people that get to the top are, or become, twisted and evil, even if the general population is really quite nice once you get to know them.

  10. Re:I don't give a **** about Microsoft... by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Open source is supposed to be cross platform...

    Says who?

    There are a lot of open-source projects that are platform specific. Sometimes that's what you need.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  11. I call bull sh:t on this, they don't want to play by Locutus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look at the guy they hired to run their Linux Lab, Hilfe or something like that is his name. They made him up to be a friend to OSS but then he got put in charge of their anti-linux marketing or the likes.

    20+ years of watching these guys tell me it is business as usual for MSFT. Windows is their baby and nothing is going to threaten it. Linux and OSS is too compelling for many of Microsofts customers so Microsoft must get its hands dirty and shove its way into that area enough to figure out how to pull those customers back to Windows.

    Their business is Windows and maintaining that products position. Software which runs on Windows and some other platform is a threat. This is how it has always been so why would anyone think they are playing any other game? Twenty years folks, twenty years. Just look at ODF and MS-OOXML for proof of how far they'll go to protect their position.

    this new guy should not be given the time of day IMO.

    LoB

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  12. No trust without dropping "patent" claims by Nitewing98 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We should not trust Microsoft, no matter how nice their liaison to the FOSS community, until they drop their claims that Linux distros infringe their patents. Either they need to specify WHICH patents or withdraw the claim entirely.

    If we give in to anything less, we're selling out and lending cred to M$, not to mention allowing them to make money off of FOSS through their "licensing" program.

    --

    Nitewing '98

    Everything works...in theory.

  13. Microsoft at it again, news at 11 by deckardt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do these three words sound familiar? embrace extend extinguish

  14. microsoft is not exactly good or evil by Z80a · · Score: 3, Insightful

    microsoft is capitalist,they go where they think the money is.

    if you give em hard proof of a more profitable future in OSS,they will run to it faster than a young puppy chasing a rubber ball.

  15. Bullshit. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They have broken the law, cheated on business partners, used underhanded tactics in the OS to stifle competition.

    That has nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism does not work without the respect and adherence to the rule of law, and needless to say, one is immoral because one chooses to, not because one is a capitalist.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  16. Re:Let's embrace and extend FIRST! by chromatic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm having a hard time seeing the open-source community actually being capable of doing something new and interesting.

    Says the person posting on the Internet.

  17. Re:HAVE you tried it? by Allador · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Cant speak for the_mink, but I have.

    I still, throughout my entire life, have never been able to get any form of Linux running on a laptop I've owned (either personally or through job).

    Not once. And these are all high end corporate class machines from Dell and HP. Like the ones that hundreds of millions of other corporate types are using and buying daily.

    Ubuntu 8.04 LiveCD wont even run on this laptop. The standard install disc NEVER works on any machine I've ever seen, apparently because the 'splash' screen is a problem. The first step after install from the alternate disc is always to edit grub to disable the splash. Otherwise you never get a screen, and cannot even pull up a terminal. How could the splash option in grub boot result in a terminal not being available? This is not something I understand.

    I mean what the hell. Didnt these guys ever hear of a generic software VGA driver, like every other OS on the planet has to fall back on?

    And wireless never works. Ever. On any laptop I've ever used.

    Even when I recruit the local Linux expert, he spends many hours, and then just shakes his head and gives up. And on the current laptop, thats with the Intel 4965agn, which has a freaking open source driver from Intel. It still doesnt work. And the approach taken to saving WPA keys, where you are expected to enter them in every time you connect? Thats just terrible.

    On the flip side, I've had huge success with using Linux running as a guest in VMWare to serve some specific services. Works pretty darn flawlessly, actually. I've had a copy of Kubuntu running on VMWare server on my windows laptop host for years, for various purposes, and it works great. But on real-world hardware? Never.

    At the moment Linux and other Unices are purely for deep specialists. And this doesnt mean the millions of rabid 'I use linux' people out there, who rant and rave about how awesome Linux is and how bad Windows is, but then have no freaking idea how to do simple things like switch a linux box from static to dhcp. I mean its just sad.

    So it certainly has its place, and 'its place' is growing yearly. But its nothing even remotely like what you're suggesting, at least in my experience.