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
--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.
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.
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.
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...
I'd say the joke served its purpose here. Got an MS fanboy to blow his cover and raised his blood pressure to boot.
If you are a fangirl instead, it still applies. If you are a fanvampire, sorry for the blood pressure joke.
Infuriate left and right
"....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;