Slashdot Mirror
Why Microsoft Cozied up to Open Source at OSCON
This year at OSCON it seemed that you couldn't throw a stone without hitting someone from Microsoft (and in fact, I'm sure several people did). They were working very hard to make themselves known, and working desperately to change public opinion of Microsoft's involvement in the open source community. Linux.com's Nathan Willis took a look at what they were preaching, with a hefty dose of skepticism, and tries to postulate what the "angle" is. Of course, the powers that be at Microsoft may have finally seen the writing on the wall and felt the pressure from Google enough to alter their strategy a bit. For now I guess we'll have to wait with guarded optimism (or laughable contempt, depending on how old/jaded you are).
Embrace, Extend....
Just like the saying goes...keep your friends close, and your enemies closer...only in Microsoft's case they have no friends.
that goes against google's core principle of hoarding as much data as possible
I hate to barge in on the fun here, but after years of calling them "Micro$haft" and "Windoze" and lame outdated jokes about Bob and Clippy, not to mention the massive FUD campaign against Vista, do you really wonder why they'd trust you at all?
You're not going to get rid of Microsoft, much as twitter & co. would want you to believe. So I'd recommend you eye them suspiciously and try to figure out if they're being open and straightforward about what they're doing. A sort of "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" deal.
My personal perception - admittedly a limited view of a slice of the company as viewed from the outside - is that the rank and file are more and more aware of the need to play fair in order to compete effectively. They know that they have some really good software, but they have to justify the costs that go with it. Interoperability is one way to do that, as long as it's in everybody's interest and not just theirs.
I think Microsoft is changing, but it's not going to happen overnight. You can either give it a chance, or continue down the same path. They still own 90% of the desktop, their server market share is growing and either way they're still shoveling money every quarter. They're still the 300lb gorilla, and charging them head on while screaming is not going to work very well.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
"Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches." - Steve Balmer
eh? no no no...
"Microsoft is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches."
yep. sounds about right.
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
I think the key difference you've failed to recognize is that the people who have done the things you point to aren't trying to get in good with Microsoft, while Microsoft, which has likened Open Source to cancer, is trying to get on the good side of the open source community.
A 300lb gorilla is either abnormally small, juvenile, or perhaps a large female. The common term for an a juggernaut that dwarfs all competitors in an area of business is "800lb gorilla".
Here are the plain, simple facts regarding this sudden "change of heart":
1) Microsoft has, up until this point, violently opposed the open-source model, community and underlying morals & ethics that sustain our "ecosystem" as they put it. They have used Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, slander (and lots of PR/marketing money) to make open-source look inferior to their products. Remember, open-source is a "cancer".
2) Microsoft, since the beginning, has outright sabotaged other software companies' software, pushed (against their own customers no less) software onto their customers that only benefits them (WGA, Terminal server licensing server) and causes unjust amounts of headache for the people who purchase said software.
3) Speaking of Terminal Server, just a quick personal note from my recent experience: Microsoft intentionally limited Windows 2000 Server color depth to 256 colors for connecting devices (NT4 did NOT have this limitation). Windows 2003 Server touted features include 'Increased color depth in connecting devices'. This seems an awful lot to me as a conscious effort to cripple one version of their product, to be able to sell more of their next.
4) Microsoft is headed by a guy who got so butt hurt at an honest competitor that he threw a chair and started cursing.
---
The open source community must stand tall against Microsoft. Don't let the easily forgotten past dilute in your current glass of water - Microsoft has absolutely no intention of making an about face. They exist because they want to make MONEY. LOTS of money. And that's not bad, we all need money to survive - but Microsoft doesn't play by the rules. Never has, never will. I say we give them 10 years to prove their intentions (since it took them at least that long to put them in the position with the community in the first place) with the community. After that, maybe we'll feel more comfortable with letting the wolf into the sheep's domain.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
The biggest hurdle between Microsoft and open source is the GPL. Because of how the license is written its very hard for Microsoft to embrace and extend any project written in GPL, especially GPLv3. Even if Microsoft somehow should manage to get the lead developers of some high profile projects away enough people exists that would just fork and ignore them completely.
I expect Microsoft to put much effort into trying to get more projects to use for example the BSD or Apache license instead of the GPL. Some people might but i suspect most peope are smart enough to realize all they are after is another chance at doing a Kerberos on other peoples hard work.
HTTP/1.1 400
Listen, I hate to break this to you and *every damn person* (nothing personal, you're far from the only one) that thinks the mere mention of chairs whenever the topic of Steve Ballmer- or even just MS- comes up is funny... it's not.
Yes it is.
Secondly, most of the "jokes" aren't; they just mention chairs.
Which is all that's needed to rekindle the fire that apparently got Ballmer's ass so hot he had to throw it.
This shouldn't be mistaken for true group-shared humour. Whether it's funny is irrelevant. People don't even bother making true jokes about it any more, they just mention chairs as a shortcut. It's canned humour... it's cargo cult humour, because most of those jokes have lost sight of what was meant to be funny in the first place. They just go through the motions of mentioning Ballmer on the assumption that it's "funny".
Actually, something that's "funny" is based purely on individual perception. Given that most people around SD *still*, after 3 years, mention the Olympic event of chair-throwing (ha ha!), they still find humorous value in it. You can't tell someone that something isn't funny if they think it is. That's like telling someone "You don't like cheese." If they actually do like cheese, you're just trying to tell them what they like. Which is exactly what you're trying to do in your comment.
Do we actually think it's funny any more? Do we actually think that others find it funny any more? Or do we just all know that everyone else has implicitly agreed that this topic is considered funny?
Yes, yes, and no. Again, something is funny to someone when they think it's funny. Obviously, a LOT of people think that a balding, fat billionaire throwing a chair and screaming like a toddler because someone left their company for another, more honest and progressive company...well sh*t yeah, that's funny as hell!! Hahahahahaha!
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
[on whether to help the Klingons]
Captain James T. Kirk: They're animals.
Captain Spock: Jim, there is an historic opportunity here.
Captain James T. Kirk: Don't believe them. Don't trust them.
Captain Spock: They're dying.
Captain James T. Kirk: Let them die!
[pauses... Spock cocks his head in surprise.
Honestly, folks, what makes you think any Klingons, err, microsofties can be trusted in this day and age?
or maybe this is closer to home:
Steve Jobs (from Pirates of Silly Valley): "Dead culture in a crumbling castle"...
They're just saying "nice doggy" until they can find a rock. Maybe this is what the teachers meant when they said: "Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it".
Or how many times do you insist on touching that hot stove? Really. They need us more than we need them. Ignore them, move along, nothing to see...
Nah, they need not go that far. Just OPEN SOURCING a valid reference implementation would be okay.
Hell, HAVING a reference implementation AT ALL wouldnt hurt either!
And while we are on our wishlist, they should start transitioning from ooxml to odf, because that would be FRIENDLY to opensource instead of just yapping.
And then youre also quite ignorant: ooxml looses fidelity and office 2007 cant even open office 2000 files...
Man... who the hell do you think youre talking about?
NO SIG
I think the GP is pretty much on the mark. If MS loses the mind-share of the next generation of developers, their software stack will become the outlier, the exception to the rule. This, MS literally cannot afford.
IE is a good case in point. Anyone doing web development follows the pattern of developing first for the standards-compliant browsers then tweaking (and tweaking) for IE. This strategy works even though the "compliant" browsers really aren't that compliant. They're just a whole lot closer to each other than they are to IE, and that's enough. (Maybe IE8 will fix all that. Maybe not. We'll see.)
Nevertheless, one thing to remember is that MS has an exceptional track record of delivering wonderful developer tools. Visual Studio is very impressive. Blend is terrific, and integrates very nicely with Silverlight. The design of .NET is nothing short of inspired. The architecture of the Simplicity OS is very innovative. If MS can get lift-off on their cloud computing tools, I'm sure they will create quite a stir.
In a word, MS really does have the chops to compete.
But if they lose the mind-share of the next generation, if they are perceived as the outlier technology, they're toast. This means their tools are going to have to play nice with data protocols, file formats, and other industry standards. It's reached the level of a business necessity.
MS must interoperate, or die.
Happily, I very much doubt MS will die. I look forward to some true engineering competition from MS. I think they'll push hard on the F/OSS community, and everyone will be better for it.
Game on, MS!
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
The idea that there is this one, monolithic Microsoft that's single-mindedly driven to crush all competition (beginning with open source) is actually pretty much a myth. Within Microsoft there are a lot of different departments, teams, and initiatives. And believe it or not, nobody at the top is in charge of issuing brown shirts and armbands.
A couple of years ago I attended a presentation by some Microsoft folks at LinuxWorld Expo. It was actually by the Windows Embedded team, who wanted to talk about Windows CE, Windows Mobile, and Windows XP Embedded. I guess the perception at the time was that there were a lot of interesting new devices coming to market, and that many of them were considering Linux for their OS. The Microsoft team wanted to get in the word about the Windows option.
Nothing strange there. That's just basic Microsoft competitive (or call it anti-Linux if you want) tactics. What was interesting, though, was that the talk was not held at the LinuxWorld convention center. I was tipped off about it by a girl who was wandering the show floor, handing out flyers. The actual talk was taking place at a pizza parlor across the street. So I went over, told them who I was, had a slice of pizza, and listed to how their new build tools for XP Embedded worked. Everybody was quite nice and cordial, and nobody even bothered to slam Linux.
My point is that, all in all, this was a pretty low-rent, low-impact move on Microsoft's part. If it was part of some evil Gates/Ballmer master plan then it was pretty ham-fisted. Rather, my guess is that the embedded team just felt strongly enough about marketing their product to the LinuxWorld audience that they got together some marketing budget from their own department, bought a few plane tickets for their guys, hired a local babe to distribute the flyers, and did what developers do almost every Friday -- bought pizza.
The iron fist of Ballmer crushing down? The face of evil? Hardly. The Microsoft reps were completely non-confrontational, and I, for one, was happy to hear what they had to say. I suppose I could have sat there and plugged my ear with one finger while singing "la la la la la" between bites of pizza, but then I'd kind of look like the closed-minded one, don't you think?
So if a few guys from the open source department at Microsoft come and give a talk at an open source conference, I hardly see where it's cause for all this alarm. If anything, it should be encouraging. Does it mean Microsoft has "turned over a new leaf," and is going to completely change its business practices to suit what the /. crowd thinks? Obviously not. But I am at least willing to assume that the guy is being honest about what he says. Or do you really believe that he didn't spend any time crafting the speech -- maybe he just sketched it out on a napkin the night before, while drinking absinthe from a harp seal skull with Steve Ballmer?
Breakfast served all day!
Context my ass. He called it a cancer, and that word has distinct connotations. If he had not intended those connotations, he has had plenty of time to apologize or correct the record. That he hasn't done so speaks volumes.
Stop making excuses for idiots.
Infuriate left and right
A reporter is visiting a prison in order to do a story. She notices during lunch that people occasionally yell out numbers and everyone else laughs. "47!" (laughter). "25!" (laughter).
Curious she asks her guard escort the story behind the numbers and laughter. The guard tells her, "these guys have been here so long they don't even bother with the jokes anymore. They just yell out the number and everyone laughs because they know the punchline."
Amazed, she watches a while longer. Another inmate stands up and yells, "13!" but gets no response.
The guard casually says, "old Sammy. He never could tell a joke."
"Chairs!"
"....or laughable contempt, depending on how old/jaded you are...."
Yup; very old, very jaded. I was bossing mainframes when little Billy Gates was still sleeping on computer room floors, and I have yet to see anyone who didn't eventually get stabbed in the back by little Billy and his pack of thugs.
Just wait for it. They've always gotten away with it, so there's no reason for that pack of rats to change their ways now.
Regards;
I hate to barge in on the fun here, but after years of calling them "Micro$haft" and "Windoze" and lame outdated jokes about Bob and Clippy, not to mention the massive FUD campaign against Vista, do you really wonder why they'd trust you at all?
We don't give a rat's ass if Microsoft trusts us. They're trying to infiltrate open source, not the other way around. Your argument is pointless and completely irrational.
So I'd recommend you eye them suspiciously and try to figure out if they're being open and straightforward about what they're doing
WE DON'T TRUST THEM. Is that so hard to understand? We don't believe they're being open and straightforward, why should we? They've never been open and straightforward with anyone ever.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me over and over for twenty years, shame on me. If Microsoft wants our trust they're going to have to earn it.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest