Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Launches Its Own Open Source Foundation
darthcamaro writes "Microsoft already had its own open source (OSI-approved) licenses, its own open source project hosting site and now it's adding its own non-profit open source foundation.
That's right, the company that is still banging the patent drum against open source now has its own 501(c)(6) open source foundation. Officially called the CodePlex Foundation, it's a separate effort from the CodePlex site and is aimed at helping to get more commercial developers involved in open source. Considering how they continue to attack Linux and open source, will anyone take them seriously?"
Apparently you haven't used it. It is now my daily user at work, while it is a million times better than Vista, I still would rather use my Ubuntu at home or even my wife's Mac. The cool visuals wear off after about 2 days, and the long load times, random hangs start to become more noticeable. While Ubuntu is not perfect, it is free. And the cost to upgrade my wife's mac to Snow Leopard was a reasonable $29 versus the nearly $200 for windows.
Half of writing history is hiding the truth.
Since you have already been modded troll I shouldn't be feeding you but just this time.
Yes they are obligated to maximize profit for their shareholders, to that goal, it makes no sense to release Windows or MS Office as FOSS, that's not what I want, nor what the majority of FOSS users want either. Except for the minority of loons that actually do want that, the majority of FOSS users and developers understand MS is under no obligation to release Windows or MS Office.
Still we need a Free, Open Source operative system and office suite, a non hostile system that doesn't regards its users as thieves by default, An office suit that doesn't antagonize us, insert malicious secret codes in our documents, and OS that has the features we want, not the features someone else wants us to have and be limited to.
So we make our own. No actions from MS are required. But MS has acted. Against us, every time they poison and flood an open standards forum, every time they bribe a politician who is considering going free, every time they they build intentional incompatibilities in their software, every time they scare clients with bogus patent threats, every time they come up with deceiving names to inject noise in the conversation, like .net, like officeopen instead of openoffice, like shared source instead of opens source, and now this fake open source foundation.
That is what we are complaining about, we don't want them to release their products as FOSS, we just want them to stop playing dirty.
But... the future refused to change.
Believe it or not, there is a vast world of non-linux developers out tehre - people who have no interest in developing for linux - who actually are interested in building and using oSS Windows tools. People will take them seriously, and they'll meet with a fairly large amount of success amongst windows-only developers.
Notice how I got modded down? That is the usual "response" I get from the Linux users instead of actually responding to my post. But unlike those that use modpoints instead of their voice, I actually respond to those that post.
To respond to your post, yes I have had machines that have "stopped working" in my 15 years as a sales and repair guy, and you know what? A good 90%+ of the time the "fix" is simply re-installing the driver. Boom, no muss, no fuss, and MOST importantly-NO PAPERWEIGHTS! How is a retailer supposed to sell your product? How are we supposed to keep your product on our shelves? We don't have time to compile current lists of all the hardware being sold at the big three, and then spend countless hours trawling forums looking to find which 30% work, only to have to start all over again when more hardware comes through.
What are the answers I get when I put this before the Linux community? I always get variations on three themes-Bundle, Support Contract, or "demand that they give their code to kernel developers", and here I will respond and shoot down every single one of those arguments and show why they do not work. 1.-Bundle-Unless your name is Michael Dell, bundling will break you. The big retailers will ALWAYS be able to undercut your price, and unlike what most Linux users think folks do NOT feel "privileged" to run Linux or any other OS. They are looking at price and features and bundling makes Windows the cheaper option, as I don't have to carry all this non PC gear just to sell a machine,strike 1.
2.-support contracts. This little ditty is popular with corporate IT, who fail to understand that home sales are an ENTIRELY different animal than corporate IT. Home users HATE support contracts, see the Best Buy extended warranties for example. Again that pushes Linux into a more expensive bracket than Windows, as I will be spending more time trying to fix whatever problem they have with unsupported hardware than simply doing what I enjoy, building, fixing, and selling computers. Strike 2-
3.-Finally there is the "demand they give their code to the kernel devs" crowd, which I hate to break the news to them, is so full of fail it isn't even funny. First of all, have you ever worked retail? The brands there are NOT the same brands being sold by corporate. The companies that have released code-IBM,Intel,HP,ATI-what do they have in common? All have a large patent warchest and interest in the server/HPC platforms. That is nothing at all like retail, not even close. Any lawyer with half a brain would advise against giving source, just look at how Facebook today had to hand out source to a patent troll. The risk of patent trolls is simply too high for a lousy 2% market. A market I might add that thanks to the RMS "source code or nothing!" brigade have made it VERY hard to write binary drivers for Linux that will even function past a single point release. It has been 15 years, if the companies were gonna release source for all the items at Walmart they would have done it by now. Strike 3 and your product is off the shelves!
I apologize for the length, but I really do want this to change. I WANT to sell Linux, as I believe its superior security model makes it a better choice for those that simply surf and watch video. This would make for a nicer experience for the customers, and lower prices for me. But until they can actually go into Walmart and buy hardware without studying for a test, well I simply can't have it on my shelves. Because when an item doesn't work they will say their new machine is broken (which to them it is) and bring it back to me to fix it (which of course I can't without drivers) and then I have to either take the box back and eat the cost difference between new and used, or burn the customer and watch my rep going down the shitter.
I'm sorry if this offends Linux users, but in 2009 this is just insanity. Printer drivers should NOT need to be in the fricking kernel to work! Hardware manufacturers SHOULD be able to put a "Linux 32/64" driver folder on
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.