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....
... nah. No I don't.
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
Since Steve Ballmer isn't a programmer, there's no geek pride to be stepped on here. Just watch out for the chairs. :P
--Steve Balmer
Microsoft's biggest problem isn't Google, it is that everyone is writing for a platform that is vendor neutral. It's extraordinarily difficult to find a business client that wants a client program - they want everything on the web whether it is stupid or not, and that's what has MS really worried. Google has failed in web apps fairly well, besides search, so they aren't the threat. What is the threat is that no one is really writing any sort of new applications for Windows SDK, .NET, etc. Open source people are at least interested in desktop applications development or PC applications development for Linux, and so, this could be part of a larger effort to at least get their stuff on Windows. Ultimately, Microsoft would rather have Windows running Linux applications on it desktop, then to have no desktop at all!
This is my sig.
Just like the saying goes...keep your friends close, and your enemies closer...only in Microsoft's case they have no friends.
The argument that Willis makes about MS wanting to lure F/OSS developers back is quite accurate. I just wonder how much MS's past behaviors will hurt them in this endeavor. Many people, especially those closely aligned with projects like Apache, Open Office, etc. are well aware of MS's historic practice of "embrase, extend, extinguish" so they're likely to be very cautious about any olive branches that they offer. I wonder if this well documented behavior of MS's is likely to doom such tactics to failure in the long run. As the next generation of programmers gets their feet wet they'll likely read & hear about all the trouble MS has caused, and see growing number of F/OSS projects. My guess is that many of them will likely deduce for themselves that sticking with F/OSS as much as possible is the preferred track to go and that they shouldn't trust MS themselves like those before them. Perhaps some folks within MS have also realized this and that's why they're starting to "cozy up" to F/OSS. They likely realize they've got a LONG way to go to start winning the real hard-core F/OSS folks back to supporting Windows.
working desperately to change public opinion of Microsoft's involvement in the open source community
After years of calling it "open sores" and saying open source is a "cancer", I'd say they have their work cut out for them.
Do they really wonder why open source people don't trust them?
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
What about this crazy idea:
Yeah, there even doesn't have to be a "???" step.
Build a tool even an idiot can use and only an idiot will want to use it. -S.O.B.
http://code.google.com/hosting/projects.html
Riiiight.
The one thing that MS has going for it is a complete lack of understanding of "open source" by upper management of many companies. I know that at previous jobs I couldn't even use those two words together without fear of a slap on the hand.
I realize that things are shifting and many companies are already investigating "open source" solutions, however they still weigh the pros and cons of both and still usually go for the business model that they understand the most.
Now that Microsoft is trying to be Open Source friendly, their name is appearing in all kinds of articles with those dreaded words "open source" and therefore all those managers who disreguarded that entire sector of the software industry are now that much more willing to let their IT departments experiment with "open source" solutions. And us IT people who have been waiting to jump the MS ship for years actually have an audience for that great MS replacement solution we have had in our heads.
I predict that this pandering to the Open Source community might signal the downfall for MS. Unless they embrace it completely and bleed "open source", they will never be as good as their "truely open" competitors.
It would be like Coke advertising that it now tastes more like (insert cheap cola maker here)... all of those people who have been drinking Coke because they thought it was better because they knew the name will now try the alternative. If the alternative is truely better, who's gonna drink Coke anymore?
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
MS can be trusted to do whatever they need to do to make a buck. .Net binaries that happen to run OK on Mono any time soon.
So I'm expecting Office
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
I've recently heard that Microsoft is looking for a Senior Director in the Product Marketing area around their web application development strategy and tools. One of the requirements for this position is a solid understanding of the LAMP stack and development approaches for web applications built on open source software. Presumably the successful candidate will have the task of marketing Microsoft's .Net story against the open source LAMP stack. Microsoft's participation at OSCON and similar events gives them both the opportunity to become part of the open source community, and a better understanding of how they can compete against it.
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.
Im in ur OSCONs, stealin ur develpurs! DEVELPURS! DEVELPURS!
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
*IF* MS wanted to be open source friendly, things like OOXML would just vanish
So, to be friendly to open source, they should get rid of the only open document format that can handle billions of legacy documents without losing fidelity???
Grandparent said OOXML not PDF.
Wake me when this happens.
[Snoring Begins]
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
[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...
> 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.
So Google has open sourced its search engine? Cause all I've seen them open source is some fluff plus some contributions to projects that they use in order to provide their services (where the ratio between them receiving and giving is about zillion to one). No open sourcing of their golden eggs.
So please Slashdotters, stop being such bitches for Google and Apple. Try to understand that for-profit companies have only two relationships with the GPL license: If they provide services or sell hardware, they love it. They can piggy back on the stuff others have built and make a buck. If they sell software, then they hate GPL because selling GPL'ed software is damn hard. (Not impossible, but hard.)
Microsoft is playing nice with open source for three reasons:
1. Microsoft is working very hard to improve its image. Look at the number of lawsuits they have settled in the last few years vs. the 90's and you'll see a company that's trying very hard not to get any bad press.
2. Regulators have squeezed Microsoft's balls to publish their protocols and file formats and play nice with others.
3. Corporations that they sell a lot of licenses to demand they interop well with other operating systems and applications that they use.
Dejan
Depends on what you mean by "Open Source". If everything microsoft does goes Free Software (a real FOSS license that protects the six freedoms), its free, forever.
Yes, they will still make a buck: GOOD! If we only managed to convince them of that.....
Sigh
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!
I think that like any large corporation there are some divides in principles from one department/division to another... Take ASP.Net MVC, and the DLR teams for example... these teams have been very F/OSS friendly for several years now... I think it just depends. Many large companies will have teams that use one platform/environment over another.. I don't think it necessarily speaks for anything in particular to see MS employees take an interest in OpenSource. It's just a big company, and like any big company there is some diversity in what people have interests in...
I don't think it's part of some master plan, so much as part of being a large technology company in this day and age.
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
If MS wanted to support open source projects, they could devote some resources to help them. In particular:
- MinGW could use help porting to Win64
- Anyone using gcc compilers on Windows would benefit if Microsoft's debuggers supported debugging one of the gcc debug info formats, or if they helped gcc to produce their format.
I suggested these ideas to a Microsoft rep at the Flourish conference in April, but was brushed off.
"....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;
are those who work at slashdot.
Where would slashdot be without Microsoft to bash? They might have to do some actual journalism.
I'm probably going to regret this, but here goes:
- The only link I can find for 'selling inferior tools to Lotus' is to a Roughly Drafted article that, as usual, fails to cite sources. Can you provide any? I'd be interested to read them.
- You say that Microsoft actively smear advocates of freedom - can you show me one example?
- What you call co-option others call co-operation. Can you explain why you feel that Microsoft helping Novell to create an OSS version of .NET is 'poison'?
- Can you give me an example of Microsoft creating fights between OSS developers? All the ones I have seen publicised on Slashdot have been the inevitable result of the politicisation of OSS and FOSS by people such as yourself.
- We all know you hate Vista, but what in your view is wrong with IIS and Visual Studio? I'm assuming you're going to cite security issues with IIS, but IIS 6 has had only one known remote code execution hole, and even that cannot run code with more privileges than IIS itself is given. Furthermore, Visual Studio is highly rated by most who have used it.
I write this in the interest of furthering discourse, but I have to admit I'm not holding my breath. I hope you surprise me.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Mostly all of this stuff, M$ cosying up to open source, is just a cynical exercise in marketing. As a lot of developers are finding open source tools cheaper for the medium and long term M$ is finding it much harder to attract them, for example silverfish is really just going nowhere. I certainly hope you wont ask me to cite developers, developers, developers, developers and the associated billy goat wild gesticulations ;).
How long ago was it that M$ was doing exactly this same sort of thing, only to be followed up a month later with a 'all your patents belong to us claim' by ballmer. Of course M$ can change, just as soon as it tosses out the old management team and replaces it with a new team, one that is capable of successfully diversifying a company with billions of dollars of capital (you would have though that was a no brainer) and converting money losing divisions (after years and years of losses) into money making divisions, ballmer's boast of being able to lose a much money as necessary to gain market share eventually has to wear a bit thin, dare we say, threadbare.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
"I'm a scorpion; it's my nature."
Microsoft doesn't share, ever. They exchange, acquire, barter, steal, strategically release, but under no circumstances do they share. Nothing goes out of the company without a bean counter being able to draw a direct map of how the outflow will lead to a corresponding influx. If you have something of value to Microsoft, they will examine scenarios in which they get what you have in exchange for something they have. If you have nothing of value to Microsoft, you get nothing. It's not sharing if there's always an angle, that's bargaining.
Sharing is a human behavior. Microsoft is not human. It's a corporate entity whose mentality is closer to a reptile or shark. It is to our great detriment that we anthropomorphize them. Sometimes they exhibit behaviors which seem to mimic the emotions we are accustomed to: fear, sadness, joy, remorse... but when it comes down to it, they feel nothing, it's just another feeding strategy. Reptiles don't smile, their mouths are just curved sometimes.
We must always remember, corporations are more vicious than a shark. Unlike a mindless predator, they actually know we anthropomorphize them and they use that too as a weapon against us. The problem we have when dealing with corporations is that, as people, we have a tendency to believe other people have the same altruistic intentions we have. And the worst part is, the corporate agents you meet at these gatherings DO have altruistic intentions. They're not in on the plan, they're just corporate agents who are fulfilling their duty and their only duty is to earn your trust. It's the corporate agents you don't meet who are assigned to violate your trust, and they have no problem doing it because they've never even met you, they didn't shake your hand, they didn't have a beer with you. But the corporation operates as a single entity. The hands which embrace you don't know they're holding you in place for the mouth to bite, so the hands may even genuinely like you.
The corporation is counting on the fact that you think the agents walking around OSCON are normal people just like everyone else. Don't be fooled.
Rather than just say "here is some extra code and ifdefs so it runs on Windows" is make changes to Windows so "your Linux code compiles without changes". Now let's ignore X, which is a mess, and I can't blame them for not emulating that. But they need to provide a working, default, POSIX-like environment.
You mean "they should ship Interix with Windows by default"?
Absolutely. That's the biggest thing they could do to turn around the view of Microsoft. The fact that they won't do it is continuing proof that no matter what they say it's all vapor.