Why Microsoft Is Being Nicer To Open Source

MS OSS Strategy is UpSide Down. by martiniturbide · 2010-08-31 12:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

Nobody will fall for MS OSS strategy. It is focus to harm MS business partners, and not too touch MS money source. Check my article: http://martin.iturbide.com/?page_id=114

Re:MS OSS Strategy is UpSide Down. by noidentity · 2010-08-31 13:28 · Score: 0

I'm just curious as to why you wrote the word as "UpSide".
Re:MS OSS Strategy is UpSide Down. by HermMunster · 2010-08-31 14:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

The slide in your editorial demonstrates Microsoft's vision of OSS during initial announcement a couple years ago. They were all for OSS as long as it fit their definition of it. They were working quite hard to get enterprise businesses to embrace their vision of OSS. If they had business following their vision then the vision of true open source would be blurred and out of sight.
What was identified by the OSS community regarding their definition of OSS those couple years ago was exactly what you have identified here. They showed that Microsoft's definition of OSS was only OSS if it was done for Windows. Of course, that's not what true OSS is nor how it was defined some 17 years ago.
Their definition of OSS was released not too long after several Microsoft employees spoke out about how Microsoft was going to kill Linux. One of them went so far as to predict that that year was the start of the death of Linux.
Their definition is nothing less than embrace, EXTEND, extinguish. By getting business to embrace their view they can reduce the reach of OSS into business because they believe Microsoft's version is the only true OSS. That in effect will cease adoption of OSS by business and hence the death of Linux.
I must admit that Linux adoption seems to have slowed and the amount of press has considerably declined. Certainly some areas have continued to expand.

--
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Re:MS OSS Strategy is UpSide Down. by Frosty+Piss · 2010-08-31 16:24 · Score: 1

Nobody will fall for MS OSS strategy...
Because many of these government entities are simply waiting for Microsoft to offer them deep discounts. Sad but true.

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Re:MS OSS Strategy is UpSide Down. by mjwx · 2010-08-31 17:03 · Score: 1

It's MS's standard strategy,

Embrace <- You are here
Extend
Extinguish

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:MS OSS Strategy is UpSide Down. by cyclomedia · 2010-08-31 21:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

When your systems are *already* running OSS then Microsoft can't discount themselves into them, because they would have to give away all their software and licences for free just to match what you're already paying. This is why MS's western-world strategy can not work in BRIC economies.
In the west MS's software is already in business and government systems and the costs and training requirements (or FUD-driven perceived costs, at least) to migrate _away_ from MS _to_ OSS is what MS has traditionally relied on to retain and - through interoperability lockin - expand their customer base.
MS here has the reverse problem, rather than trying to keep existing customers locked in to the MS ecosystem they have to embrace the concept of OSS interoperability just to get a foot in the market. Extend can not work here though, because the critical mass will ignore MS extensions that do not interoperate with _their_ existing systems.
This is the tipping point. This is MS's nightmare scenario.

--
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
Re:MS OSS Strategy is UpSide Down. by gbjbaanb · 2010-08-31 22:43 · Score: 1

They showed that Microsoft's definition of OSS was only OSS if it was done for Windows
understandable.. they don;t care what software you write .. as long as you buy their stuff to do it with. It'd be an interesting software ecosystem (even on Windows only) if they were the only software company allowed to sell software!
I wonder how they'd react if something they sold lots of started to be replaced with an OSS equivalent? A Sharepoint -> Drupal converter for example :)
Re:MS OSS Strategy is UpSide Down. by HermMunster · 2010-09-01 02:15 · Score: 1

Sun Microsystems created Java and licensed it to Microsoft. The terms were that Microsoft (nor anyone else) couldn't change it to add proprietary extensions. Microsoft agreed. A couple years later they were creating extensions that only benefitted Windows users. Effectively that caused programmers to write only for Windows.
Sun sued Microsoft and won. Microsoft was ordered to remove their VM from Windows. Today, no one uses Microsoft's version of Java.
This was Microsoft's embrace, extend, extinguish for all to see. If you look at the effect they were able to effectively eliminate Java as a competitor without actually fully embracing it. That is the nature of their monopoly power.

--
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Re:MS OSS Strategy is UpSide Down. by Wraithlyn · 2010-09-01 02:48 · Score: 1

I just attended DrupalCon Copenhagen last week, one of the sponsors was Microsoft.
As I was meandering near their booth, I heard this phrase: "...make it more like Apache". What's this? I thought, and buzzed hurriedly over there.
"Make WHAT more like Apache?", I inquired.
"IIS"
"Can it read .htaccess files now?"
"No, but we've got this great utility that lets you convert .htaccess into our web.config format"
"OK that's pretty cool, but why not just let it read .htaccess files natively? It's pretty much the one big thing preventing me from just dropping a LAMP app into IIS and having it Just Work"
"Oh, but check out our web.config format, I think you'll find it's even better than .htaccess, it's [insert canned web.config spiel here]"
I pretty much lost interest at this point, because it became clear that what you guys are talking about above is absolutely true... Microsoft's participation in Open Source is not about openness or interoperability, it's just another vector to drive people towards Windows lock-in.

--
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Re:MS OSS Strategy is UpSide Down. by dave562 · 2010-09-01 03:16 · Score: 1

I wonder how they'd react if something they sold lots of started to be replaced with an OSS equivalent? A Sharepoint -> Drupal converter for example
This is an interesting question. When I first saw Sharepoint, my thought was along the lines of, "Microsoft is jumping on the Wiki bandwagon." Keep in mind that was in 2002 or so. Since then it seems like Sharepoint growth has only accelerated, despite the fact that it seems to be the kind of copy cat product that Microsoft is known for. They absorbed the collaboration methodologies of other projects like Wiki and made it their own. Five years ago it might have been possible to get a Sharepoint to OSS conversion tool. Now that Microsoft has so tightly integrated Sharepoint with Office, it will be harder to do. The big selling point of Sharepoint that I have seen is the process and workflow tools, integrated with Office. OSS is just too fragmented to offer a similar software stack and keep it consistent. Which Wiki would you use? Which CMS? Which versioning control? Hell, which Office-like suite? Once you pick all of the pieces, how long until one project folds or gets forked?
Re:MS OSS Strategy is UpSide Down. by martiniturbide · 2010-09-02 00:41 · Score: 1

That presentation was done by an MS employee on late April of 2010. So they still think they OSS strategy is that way.

Yes, something is up by transporter_ii · 2010-08-31 12:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

I get MSDN magazine and the latest issue has a seriously good article on sqlight. They said it works really well on cell phones, etc., where it was almost impossible to install a database server and/or could not always have access to a server to connect back to a database.

transporter_ii

--
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality

Re:Yes, something is up by sodul · 2010-08-31 12:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

You mean SQLite ?
Re:Yes, something is up by ewanm89 · 2010-08-31 12:58 · Score: 1

my symbian S60 phone has mysql install on it.
Re:Yes, something is up by transporter_ii · 2010-08-31 12:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yes. I wish Slashdot had an edit feature. Crap just doesn't show up until you hit submit...

--
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
Re:Yes, something is up by PCM2 · 2010-08-31 15:48 · Score: 1

Yeah, but SQLite isn't even open source -- it's straight up public domain software. Hardly a threat to Microsoft or its business model.

--
Breakfast served all day!
Re:Yes, something is up by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 20:50 · Score: 0

1) The Preview button isn't there just for making it look pretty.
2) If you make a mistake, you'll just have to wait for the next Tuesday.
Re:Yes, something is up by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 22:02 · Score: 0

It does have an edit feature. You edit your comment, then press submit!
Re:Yes, something is up by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 23:48 · Score: 0

Preview?
Re:Yes, something is up by Timothy+Brownawell · 2010-09-01 00:22 · Score: 1

Yeah, but SQLite isn't even open source -- it's straight up public domain software.
It sounds like you're confusing "open source" with "copyleft".
Re:Yes, something is up by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-01 05:37 · Score: 0

Crap just doesn't show up until you hit submit...
Truer words have rarely been uttered.
Re:Yes, something is up by PCM2 · 2010-09-01 12:45 · Score: 1

It sounds like you're confusing "open source" with "copyleft".
No. Go look it up. SQLite does not use any recognized open source license. It only has a copyright statement explicitly stating that it is the public domain. Anybody can do anything they want with it, commercially or otherwise. If that's not different from open source then nobody would have needed an open source movement in the first place.

--
Breakfast served all day!
Re:Yes, something is up by Timothy+Brownawell · 2010-09-02 00:43 · Score: 1

If that's not different from open source then nobody would have needed an open source movement in the first place.
It is one of many kinds of open source.
Putting something in the public domain meets the requirements listed here: http://www.opensource.org/osd.html . It also meets the FSF's definition of "free software".
The reason for having an open source movement or free software movement is that people were starting to keep their software under restrictive licenses. The movements were meant to encourage people to not do this, whether by using less restrictive licenses or public domain.

Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 12:33 · Score: 4, Informative

The article didn't say or even imply that Microsoft hasn't slammed open source, the whole point was that they're not doing it any more.

Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 12:34 · Score: 1, Informative

This isnt about Microsofts past attitude, buts its present one, which is a hell of alot nicer then it was before. Microsoft have made several contributions to the Linux kernel, and helped out other projects in other ways.

Embrace, extend, eliminate by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 12:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is Microsoft's old M.O.

Nothing to see here folks ...

Re:Wrong by Monkey-Man2000 · 2010-08-31 12:37 · Score: 1

Microsoft have made several contributions to the Linux kernel...

ORLY? I'm genuinely curious what they have contributed to the kernel.

--
This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).

When the cheese moves you follow it by the+Gray+Mouser · 2010-08-31 12:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

Microsoft is always going to be concerned with maximizing their profits (their legal fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders). If they see ways to do that by working with or using open source, then they will.

Microsoft is in a position similar to IBM, where they can provide solutions and support them. If part of that solution is open source, MS still gets all the support dollars. A lot of companies use some open source stuff now, but the last thing you want to tell your PHB is that your support comes from some usenet forum.

Re:When the cheese moves you follow it by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 12:46 · Score: 0

Have you ever seen Microsoft support an end user directly?
Re:When the cheese moves you follow it by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 12:54 · Score: 0

Yes...the ones who have the money to pay for it.
Same as IBM or Apple or anybody else in the big leagues.
Re:When the cheese moves you follow it by wierd_w · 2010-08-31 13:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

If you recall, the original "Anti-GPL" stance that Microsoft had, went something along the lines of "Contaminating the software ecosystem."
This was at a time when Microsoft was a quasi-dominant force in the server market, when their IIS server platform actually had a reasonable install base in production environments, and Windows was totally unchallenged by Linux and pals.
Fast forward about a decade now. Ubuntu Linux (and it's sub-flavors) is gaining popularity, Android is devistating Microsoft's offering in the handheld OS market, FOSS software is gaining deeply established traction in many developing countries and making inroads in countries that were previously deeply in Microsoft's pockets, and the FUD campaign that GPL==Communism has failed miserably.
As such, their "Cherished" "Software ecosystem" has had no choice but to accept the new competition, which if you re-read their old FUD campaigns, is exactly what they were saying was wrong with GPL software; It is a disruptive license that destroys the status quo, and threatens for-profit development (as it was practiced at the time.)
In the face of their major competitors (like apple) who have at least partially embraced FOSS software (OSX is based on BSD, IIRC.. could be mistaken. That's why Darwin is FOSS.) and are leveraging it like a catylist to gain more and more market penetration and market share, microsoft can no longer afford to try and play the status quo card. That's why the whole "Software ecosystem" rhetoric has dried up. Now they are playing damage control, and trying to butter up to the same projects and people that they snubbed just a decade ago, hoping that small time developers have as short a memory as do MBAs. (Or, even more disturbing, that they can bamboozle new, young and fresh talent in the FOSS community into drinking the koolaid.)
I would trust Microsoft to "Actually like" FOSS, as I would trust Darl McBride to make a linux kernel patch.
Like you pointed out in your post above, Just about the only thing you can predict that Microsoft will do is do whatever is necessary to increase its bottom line; including redact its own policy statements. Likewise, you should expect that Microsoft will do the same thing concerning FOSS policies and licenses, should it cease being profitable for MS to continue such licensing tactics.
This is a very important situation to quietly think to yourself "Caveat Emptor" about, because when you buy into their new policies, you need to be fully aware that Microsoft, can, and likely will, pull the rug out later. Their ONLY loyalty is to their stockholders, and to the all mighty dollar. They don't even have loyalty to their own rules; it would be absurd to expect that they have somehow had a change of heart in a deep way, or to behave ethically if money is involved.
Personally, I find that as a company, they are overburdened in a faulted development and managerial model that wont fare well in the current market environment. Microsoft is slowly but surely being left behind by smaller, or more agile players, much like IBM was neutered by the end of the 90s. As such, I personally would approach this whole issue with a more forward thinking eye.
As much as I DESPISE apple and Mr Jobs, I feel that he is a much more savvy CEO than Ballmer ever was, or ever could be, and this is probably the main reason why there are rumors of his imminent replacement. As such, I would predict Apple's market share to continue to grow in handheld electronic devices, and through that, leverage more into the personal computer market, though Apple seems to be taking the stance that the macintosh market is now a secondary priority.
About the only thing Microsoft has going for it right now is market momentum, and the upgrade inertia of other corporations. (The exact same reason why IE6 refuses to die.)
So, personally I would focus more on other platforms than the microsoft offerings. Microsoft has the smell of death about it.
Re:When the cheese moves you follow it by maugle · 2010-08-31 13:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Except, unlike IBM, they can't get too cozy with open source without risking their OS and Office cash cows. Though I haven't seen any numbers, I would guess that the income from support is absolutely dwarfed by the income from sales of Windows alone.

As Microsoft has said in the past, open source does have a tendency to spread ... infectiously. If Microsoft suggests using an open-source program instead of a commercial one, any smart client will notice and begin wondering what else they can get without having to pay licensing costs.
Re:When the cheese moves you follow it by Decker-Mage · 2010-08-31 13:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

That depends on the end user (how big their Microsoft licensing fees are) and/or their willingness to pay for an incident. Personally, I only use enterprise grade operating systems and application software for my machines and I'm not talking XP, Vista, or 7. I noticed a long time ago that that's about the only version where it just works unless there is a hardware failure or Microsoft does something wrong with an update. Am I paying a lot for that peace of mind and a higher level of support from MS (and others)? Yep. For me, it's worth it especially given the wild and crazy experiments I conduct here which turn out to be not so wild and crazy ten or more years later.

Aside from Microsoft making somewhat nice with the F/OSS community, which is their own self-interest given that large firms are not monolithic MS, I've noticed that getting technical support for a hybrid set of systems does not automatically get a response that places the blame on the non-MS pieces of your IT setup. If I had to guess, MS may be eyeing the market niche that IBM pretty much dominates (IMNSHO) while still making hardware and creating software; services that mix and match across whatever has in place and make it work. I've seen the first steps in this direction with their various systems management tools, especially for virtualization. The Office cash cow won't last forever and I think they are getting that. Finally.

Does this portend a kinder, gentler Microsoft? Not on your life. They are just continuing with embrace and extend while looking like a 'nice' Microsoft. Yeah, right.

--
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
Re:When the cheese moves you follow it by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 14:20 · Score: 0

I'd like to think GNU/Linux has made progress. In reality it is more like a tug of war though with one side much stronger than the other and GNU/Linux is just fighting dammm hard where Microsoft is big, clumsy, and stupid. It moves slow although eventually wins most markets. The thing to remember is the little Penguin isn't going away. It's a charity project if nothing else supports it. The fact is it isn't a charity project though. People just make it out to be that way because Microsoft is such a rotten company and GNU/Linux is mostly free. Now if we could just convince the *@)@ holes who are stopping it from being free to come on board. For the few who manage to get away using the cut-throat distributions without any non-free software components I look up to you. For those who want to support and be able to do so in the future use those distributions check out www.thinkpenguin.com. They are the only ones with the hardware right now other than the bios. They even sell usb wifi adapters and other stuff.
Re:When the cheese moves you follow it by westlake · 2010-08-31 14:40 · Score: 0, Redundant

This was at a time when Microsoft was a quasi-dominant force in the server market, when their IIS server platform actually had a reasonable install base in production environments, and Windows was totally unchallenged by Linux and pals.
Microsoft is doing quite well in the server market:
x86 server revenues were up 31.7% to $7 billion on shipments up 25.8% to 1.8 million servers, positively impacting Windows server demand. IDC put Windows server revenue at $5 billion, representing 46.5% of overall quarterly factory revenue. Linux server revenues were up 30.1% to $1.8 billion, representing 16.8% of all server revenue, up 2.5 points over last year. Server Sales Were Healthy in Q2: IDC [August 29]
With the second quarter server market figures tabulated and analyzed, it looks like SMBs rule the roost. Basically, there's been dramatic market growth among x86 servers--i.e, the PC-derived kind that SMBs buy. The high end of the market, meanwhile, continues to dry up.
IDC, the market research firm behind the figures, says that there was a 28.2 percent 2Q year-over-year increase in Windows Server shipments, as users not only bought new x86 machines, but found broader uses for x86 machines.
Linux servers (which also often involve x86 machines) showed even better growth, with vendor revenue up 30.1 percent. Linux servers now account for 16.8 percent of the server market, an increase of 2.5 points over the last year. Server Field Becoming An SMB Market
Re:When the cheese moves you follow it by jd2112 · 2010-08-31 14:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

Fast forward about a decade now. Ubuntu Linux (and it's sub-flavors) is gaining popularity, Android is devistating Microsoft's offering in the handheld OS market, FOSS software is gaining deeply established traction in many developing countries and making inroads in countries that were previously deeply in Microsoft's pockets, and the FUD campaign that GPL==Communism has failed miserably.

They were just ahead of their time. Today the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks of the world call anything they don't like communist/socialist and people just accept it without question.

--
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Re:When the cheese moves you follow it by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-08-31 15:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

If Microsoft suggests using an open-source program instead of a commercial one, any smart client will notice and begin wondering what else they can get without having to pay licensing costs.
By your logic, the latter would happen for any free product that Microsoft offers, not necessarily FOSS (since the client is presumably mainly concerned about saving $$$). Which does not stop MS from releasing stuff for free or very cheap (e.g.: SQL and VS Express, DreamSpark, BizSpark).
Why? Because sometimes, when you drop the price, or even give something away for free, it boosts sales for the rest of your stuff. For example: free Windows development tools -> more Windows applications -> higher Windows sales during the next upgrade cycle. For the same reason, Microsoft publishes that installer thingy that downloads and configures PHP on Windows/IIS, even though PHP is technically a competitor (to ASP.NET): if it makes someone who's sticking to PHP pick Windows over Linux, then it's still one more sale.
Re:When the cheese moves you follow it by CyDharttha · 2010-08-31 15:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm probably not taking all the above numbers into account accordingly, but I think there are plenty of factors to consider. Businesses continue to upgrade from Server 2003 to 2008 in the past year; this should contribute to growth of Win Server sales. I'm seeing plenty of our 2003 systems finally look to upgrades as hardware comes up on renew. We're still moving clients off Exchange 2k3. The second point, and always a point I think for Linux - we'll purchase a blank server, toss a hypervisor on it, then proceed to install numerous VMs with varying flavors of Linux with varying function. None of those installs or OS sales are recorded in the above figures. Not to mention that the hypervisors are Linux, be it VMWare, Xen, KVM, etc. And of course the move to x86 hardware continues as virtualization penetrates the datacenter and clusters of commodity hardware replace big iron.
Re:When the cheese moves you follow it by Opyros · 2010-08-31 16:22 · Score: 1

Dunno about "ahead of their time", though — Joe McCarthy was doing the same nearly sixty years ago, and he was far from the first.
Re:When the cheese moves you follow it by exomondo · 2010-08-31 18:28 · Score: 1

Personally, I find that as a company, they are overburdened in a faulted development and managerial model that wont fare well in the current market environment.
Absolutely! This seems to be their biggest problem these days, i certainly agree with most of what you said regarding their support of policies that drive profits. I don't particularly like MS, or Apple even, but they do provide products that work for most people.

Microsoft has the smell of death about it.
Really? Windows 7 seems to be doing very well.

This is a very important situation to quietly think to yourself "Caveat Emptor" about
Why do people use that term? No-one speaks latin, and in fact it's one letter shorter to write "buyer beware".
Re:When the cheese moves you follow it by phantomfive · 2010-08-31 19:38 · Score: 1

One might say, perhaps more accurately, that the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks of the world are actually the ones behind the times. Not too long ago, communism actually was a threat. Russia had a policy of capturing western countries and making them vassal states in the name of Communism. The USSR had infiltrated important weapons programs (like the Manhattan project, for example). In those days there were real reasons to be afraid of communists, and unscrupulous men took advantage to increase their own power. Those times are thankfully behind us and Glenn Beck is merely tilting at windmills, shadows of a time that is past. The communist threat is an old one, not a new one.

--
Qxe4
Re:When the cheese moves you follow it by dbIII · 2010-08-31 20:32 · Score: 1

I know it's commonly used and not your fault, but does "enterprise grade" from Microsoft only mean you get to wear a red shirt? Seriously, calling something "enterprise grade" just because it actually supports the Pentium Pro and later correctly for all of it's drivers and has actually gone through a QA process is just a bit much. NT fucking 3.51 with a very flaky version of MS Exchange was also "enterprise grade" by their description and now we look back at it in disbelieving horror.
As for their attitude to open software, I remember in years past getting a developers CDROM from MS that included gcc, it's source and a copy of the GPL. I think as an organisation they have had respect for it for a long time unless directed otherwise by things like Balmer's rants against it.
Re:When the cheese moves you follow it by gtall · 2010-08-31 22:08 · Score: 1

I don't think that maximizing their profit is what animates MS. Sure, they'd like that but they are more interested in control. This guarantees their survival and jobs over the long haul. There's also a pirate quality about the company. They seem to believe that for them to succeed implies someone else must fail. And in a way, they are correct. They wait until a market has developed and then jump in. That sort of strategy will enforce their belief that for them to succeed, they must cause someone else to fail so that they can steal their market. I think their attitude stems from a deep-seated belief that they really do not have what it takes to build a market from scratch. That can only come from a lack of confidence in their own abilities.
To give a company a personality like that, it must have been driven from the top down. Look at their corporate officers over the years. Not one was ever a technological heavy-weight. That in itself wouldn't cause their attitudes. I think they tend to understand the world as reflections of themselves. So since they've seen nothing wrong with stabbing others in the back, cutting shady deals, etc., they believe their competitors would surely do that to them, hence paranoia is born. They also got some sense of paranoia from their close relationship with Intel, who had/have their own bag of dirty tricks. The paranoia is a force that is not geared towards maximizing profits, it is geared toward controlling markets by controlling perceived competitors and buyers of their products.
Re:When the cheese moves you follow it by HermMunster · 2010-09-01 02:26 · Score: 1

These stats only represent the purchased licenses. They don't represent the whole market percentages. Microsoft, only a month or so ago, tried to pass that off as their success story--by only presenting paid licenses when Linux is free.

--
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Re:When the cheese moves you follow it by westlake · 2010-09-01 07:55 · Score: 1

They don't represent the whole market percentages. Microsoft, only a month or so ago, tried to pass that off as their success story--by only presenting paid licenses when Linux is free
When you rake in $5 billion every quarter against a product that sells for free you have something to brag about. The SMB that buys a Windows server product is almost certainly buying a host of other Windows products.
The SMB that chooses Linux is almost certain to choose Red Hat Enterprise Linux - which would be counted here.
Re:When the cheese moves you follow it by lbates_35476 · 2010-09-01 09:42 · Score: 1

Market momentum is a "real" thing. I watched as Lotus kept riding that momentum for years, then, Novell, then WordPerfect, etc.

One thing that has made an impression on me recently is that my daughter started University last year and I noticed that fully 3/4 of the kids on campus were using Mac laptops. They all loved iPods, then iPhones, and Mac laptop made complete sense to them. I suspect that this is true on most University campuses. They are not afraid of "change". They casually boot Windows XP/Vista in a Parallels or VMware virtual machine when necessary. They use Safari, iPhoto, iChat, etc. and marvel at how antiquated the equivalent applications are on Windows. So just wait a few years until those kids are calling some of the shots on what gets purchased in businesses. I think Jobs got it right by getting entrenched in their lives via iPods and iPhones and then getting their laptop and desktop purchases. Sometimes the indirect approach is best.
Re:When the cheese moves you follow it by Decker-Mage · 2010-09-02 15:26 · Score: 1

Frankly I have zero familiarity with NT in any version prior to Windows 2000 Advanced Server. That ran for years with the only reboots required when the power went down or with a Microsoft Update, and in one case, a motherboard failure. The same has been true of the various incarnations of Windows Server since WS 2003 Enterprise Edition. Similarly, more recent incarnations of SLES and RH have definitely worthy of the Enterprise grade designation. I have both here as well as many other flavors of Linux and Unix. Remember I talked about my wild and crazy experiments? I was about to add Open Solaris and NexentaStor to the mix here to experiment in the database engineering and business intelligence (actually general analytics as business is just one problem domain in a wide array of fields where I have applied analytics) arena on a server of my own design. I not only do software engineering but about every other kind of engineering out there except chemical, aerospace, and space. Those I rely on subject matter experts for which the internet is wonderful ;-). It keeps me busy in my long retirement (started at age 30). It also keeps me in toys to play with from the industry players, big and small.

As an observation, one or a few bad products, or iterations of products, does not automagically render a firm forever tainted in my book. I go and get an evaluation copy if I'm not already involved in the beta (which is frequently) and make my own decisions. After thirty years, I've seen a lot of turkeys come by. Hell, Win'Me was so bad I refused to support it. MS screws up and by my standards given the number of bugs and security problems I see in software and, often, hardware, so does the rest of the industry. But that's a subject that is pointless to discuss.

--
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
Re:When the cheese moves you follow it by dbIII · 2010-09-02 21:24 · Score: 1

"Enterprise" was typically a million dollar mainframe high availability word for situations where you couldn't reboot every year instead of every second Tuesday after an update.
That's why we laughed when Microsoft started using it for systems that initially couldn't make it through an entire month due to a time dependant bug. The platform is more stable now but still doesn't come close to systems that existed long before it was developed.

"stink-eye" by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 12:39 · Score: 0

when the summary said "stink-eye", i thought it said "brown-eye".

Re:Wrong by Potor · 2010-08-31 12:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

Basic reading comprehension skills are in order: "what is driving Microsoft to say 'we love open source' with an attempt at a straight face?"

Re:Wrong by gmuslera · 2010-08-31 12:44 · Score: 0

For how many days last "any more"? would ask for how many hours, but is already late today. They are just warming up to strike twice as harder next time.

Mod Parent Up by Monkey-Man2000 · 2010-08-31 12:51 · Score: 1, Insightful

Your article is far more interesting and substantial that the little blurb in the /. post.

--
This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).

Re:MS can't be serious with this Strategy by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 12:51 · Score: 0

So you are saying that a for-profit enterprise, wants to prevent money from being taken from them? Scandal and shame! Wait until I tell batman about this!

Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 12:52 · Score: 5, Informative

Hyper-V kernel extensions

Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 12:54 · Score: 0

there was tis really cool new invention called the search engine. Try something like www.google.com and typing "linux kernel" "microsoft contribution", if you were genuinely curious you would not have any trouble what so ever finding the information.

MSFT vs "Open Source" by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 12:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

Let's see: who profits in a big way from 'Open Source"? GOOGLE. What does Apple use as its underlying programming? Open Source. Who is killing open usage of Java? Oracle. And by default, Oracle is trying to crimp "Open Source" And who would not license JAVA to MSFT, so that MSFT had to create their own language(s)? That's right-SUN. (Although, MSFT probably would have done that to some extent anyway. So get off MSFT as the exclusive enemy of "Open Source"

Re:MSFT vs "Open Source" by sumdumass · 2010-08-31 14:56 · Score: 1

I don't think this is any MSFT as the exclusive enemy of Open Source. I think it's more of a wolf in sheep's clothing situation where it's being pointed out that the sheep over by the tree is actually a wolf in disguise.
In other words, not all rants have to touch all participants in a topic. This is just as valid as railing on anything you mentioned, it's just targeted at the "look at me, I'm your friend now" enemy.
Re:MSFT vs "Open Source" by adamofgreyskull · 2010-08-31 17:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

So get off MSFT as the exclusive enemy of "Open Source"

Oh shush you. You big drama-queen. Firstly, Steve Ballmer isn't reading our criticisms and sobbing himself to sleep every night, so don't feel like you have to come to his defence. And no-one's saying they are the only enemy of Free/Open Source software. The reason people have been hopping all over them lately is that for the past 10 years they've been painting the GPL and FOSS as worse problems than AIDS and Cancer combined. They have engaged in some despicable, underhanded and, at times illegal, practices in order to further their own agenda and prevent Free/Open Source software from gaining in-roads. They've been fined millions of dollars by the EU for their monopolistic practices.

Now, recently, for reasons the article attempts to fathom, they've radically changed their public position on Open Source software and are now stating that they L.O.V.E. love it. Looking at their past actions, it's hard to believe that this isn't just Classic Microsoft telling a blatant, cynical lie in order embark on a campaign of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Time will tell.
Re:MSFT vs "Open Source" by mvdwege · 2010-08-31 20:00 · Score: 1

And who would not license JAVA to MSFT, so that MSFT had to create their own language(s)? That's right-SUN.

I see this is the new party line? This particular bit of revisionism has been especially virulent since the Oracle/Google brouhaha started.
Here's the deal how it really went down: Microsoft killed Java on the Windows platform. They did it by licensing Java from Sun, and then putting Windows extensions in the public namespace, violating their license. And since the license was (among other things) for use of the trademark Java, Sun had no other recourse but to sue.
Mart

--
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?

Re:Wrong by bloodhawk · 2010-08-31 12:56 · Score: 3, Informative

an article with a somehwat anti MS slant but here is one example for ya. http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/yes_linus_microsoft_hating_disease_and_its_pandemic

Re:Wrong by lawpoop · 2010-08-31 12:57 · Score: 1

I could link to a dozen articles, at least, discussing just this here at Slashdot.

How many of these articles are in Portuguese? The public mass consciousness has no memory, only a fickle perception of the present.

--
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso

"Could?" by Eggplant62 · 2010-08-31 12:59 · Score: 1

What's this "'could react in a protectionist manner and start giving Microsoft the stink-eye'" shit? Isn't that the normal reaction?

Re:"Could?" by beefncheese · 2010-08-31 13:54 · Score: 1

I think Microsoft passed beyond stink-eye, and into brown-eye territory, long ago.
Re:"Could?" by Barny · 2010-08-31 15:02 · Score: 1

Since you seem knowledgeable on the subject...
What the hell is a "stink-eye"?
Have never heard this turn of phrase before.

--
...
/me sighs
Re:"Could?" by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 16:18 · Score: 0

It's an anus. It looks out of your butt, and it stinks. Sometimes a groundhog pops out.
Re:"Could?" by Barny · 2010-08-31 22:29 · Score: 1

Simply posting a link to goatse in this case would have been on topic then?

--
...
/me sighs
Re:"Could?" by uniquegeek · 2010-08-31 23:59 · Score: 1

= dirty look
Re:"Could?" by guyminuslife · 2010-09-01 02:02 · Score: 1

Wall of Stink-Eye

--
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
Re:"Could?" by Barny · 2010-09-01 14:21 · Score: 1

Ahhh, we tend to use the colloquialism "looking daggers", probably derived from "if looks could kill..."

--
...
/me sighs

Not entirely wrong. by Penguinisto · 2010-08-31 13:03 · Score: 1

Perhaps Microsoft shows one face to the nations in question ("we lurve FOSS"), but their usual face to the rest of the planet ("lunix suX0rz!").

It's not like a corporation that big can't present opposing personalities, each suited to the markets they're trying to take on.

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?

Re:Not entirely wrong. by Eternauta3k · 2010-08-31 13:24 · Score: 1

Just like during the fifa World Cup coca-cola cheers for Argentina in Argentina, for Brazil in Brazil, etc..

--
Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
Re:Not entirely wrong. by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-08-31 15:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

Corporations are not people. They hate when you antropomorphize them.
In all seriousness, it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing stance. Microsoft is a business; it exists to earn money. When and where supporting FOSS one way or another is beneficial to the bottom line, directly (more sales) or indirectly (good PR -> more sales), of course it will be supported! This doesn't mean that it'll be supported all the way - and while we're at it, go ask Google for the source code for PageRank...
Re:Not entirely wrong. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 15:50 · Score: 0

PageRank - U.S. Patent 6285999. Why would you need their source code? It's not complicated. Pick a language and start coding.
The lawyers...that's a whole nuther ball-o-wax.
Re:Not entirely wrong. by GreatBunzinni · 2010-09-01 00:06 · Score: 1

No one complains about Microsoft because it is a business or because, as you put it, it exists to earn money. The main reason why Microsoft earned such a profoundly negative reputation is because that corporation has a long history of intentionally deceiving, defrauding and undermining competing projects and businesses.
There is absolutely no reason to dislike anyone just because he intends to run a business. On the other hand, there is a terribly long list of reasons to dislike someone if that person is systematically dishonest and actively campaigns to sabotage other people's work. Microsoft, as a corporation in general and their executives/workers in particular, did (and do) plenty of the latter in the name of the company. So why wouldn't they deserve such a reputation and the bad sentiment that goes with it?

--
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.

Re:Wrong by binarylarry · 2010-08-31 13:04 · Score: 1

Wow this is amazing. I think this new technology is going to change everything. Microsoft has done it again!

Down with gopher, up with Microsoft Google!

--
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!

Rio de Janeiro's point of view. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 13:07 · Score: 0

People in Brazil (unfortunately) dont give shit about open source.
The roots are slowly spreading, but it will take long time before it really grows.

I can tell a tale about how Vista contributed for our crescent love for Ubuntu:
- XP is very popular
- people here buy PCs more wisely (they need more bang for the buck, since computers used to be expensive here and we still have the old thinking of "expensive computers"), and thus, have less powerful computers. Less powerful computers that dont benefit from Vista.
- MS took too long time to start advertising Vista seriously here (most people only got vista due to bundled crappy "starter edition" - and most people would get rid of it and install illegal XP copies)

From those 3 points, people would stick with XP. But XP is a 2001 system and looks dated next to Mac and some Linuxes. Whenever someone with a geeky linux user get to see some nice Ubuntu presentation, eventually, gets converted. I work for a mobile software development company - at first, we were Vistas and Macs only. Eventually, we're all migrating to Ubuntu. Heck, even Comedy Central cites Ubuntu!

As a final testament, I can tell about my ex-gf (she's a sociologist, not a programmer), that got a seven starter edition with her netbook and asked me to install Ubuntu on it - that would be pretty normal, if wasnt for the fact that she asked me AFTER I broke up with her and she was very angry at me. I can also tell about my aunt, a painter with no skills on computer at all.

What's the deal on your aunt? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 13:10 · Score: 0

You sleep with her too? Incest is best, really.

Re:What's the deal on your aunt? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 13:46 · Score: 0

No, he meant the Aunt was also angry after he broke it off with her.

Noticed something by zmaragdus · 2010-08-31 13:12 · Score: 1

From the article...

since business-types and engineering-types don't often communicate to each other very well.

Oh boy...did he ever hit the bullseye with this one.

--
(((dB)))

Re:Noticed something by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 13:48 · Score: 0

I don't think the problem is communication. The business types do understand that open source has the potential to become more powerful than proprietary software. The marginal costs of production are much lower. From an economic point of view, this plainly means "better". Even if it means devoting a few year's worth of resources to make it fit their needs. Businesses make capital investments all the time. That's the whole point of a business.
But there's a "problem". Most businesses aren't in the business of writing software. Moreover, there's a prisoner's dilemma in play. There's little point in investing if somebody else can do it for you. The resources tied up in writing and supporting software can (potentially) be put to better use developing the business's core strategy. Any sane business will gladly move to open source, once it fits their needs.
This is not to say that there isn't a profit to be made from open source. Public parks are underfunded, but their amenities are often very profitable.

Not the main reason by wen1454 · 2010-08-31 13:13 · Score: 1

I do not disagree with this article, but I think there are many other reasons why Microsoft is being nice. 1) Reputation. It is harder for Microsoft to attract talented programmers and “elite” users if they are viewed as some kind of Mordor. 2) Hurting competitors. Microsoft was no fan of freeware, but they made IE free (as in beer) for obvious reasons. 3) Helping the PC. Microsoft’s success is connected to the success of the personal computer. If more people switch to tablets or to the cloud, Microsoft suffers.

Re:Not the main reason by HermMunster · 2010-08-31 14:36 · Score: 0, Redundant

Giving away a product for free is not the same as open source.

--
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.

Re:Wrong by __aagmrb7289 · 2010-08-31 13:20 · Score: 1

That's a fair point - but really - while that might work, my point is that we've got an editorial that doesn't really make the point you are trying to make. Microsoft is saying good things about open source in ALL OF ITS markets. For now. Changing what they've done in the past.

Re:Wrong by exomondo · 2010-08-31 13:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

Not to mention the release of the .Net DLR under an Apache license.

Re:Wrong by __aagmrb7289 · 2010-08-31 13:22 · Score: 1

As I said in another reply:

Microsoft is saying good things about open source in ALL OF ITS markets. For now. Changing what they've done in the past.

My reading skills aren't the problem here. Perhaps some focus on your own skillset might be in order?

Microsoft's strategy is as dumb as their software by harlequinade · 2010-08-31 13:24 · Score: 0, Redundant

It is necessary to get behind someone/thing in order to stab them in the back.

--
Help feed homeless animals - Free! www.theanimalrescuesite.com

Re:MS can't be serious with this Strategy by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 13:32 · Score: 0

I really hate it, when people use unnecessary commas, in the middle of, sentences.

The Eternal Spin Zone: Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 13:39 · Score: 4, Funny

Few years ago, right here on /., someone compared Microsoft and Open Source to being a dinosaur
spinning in circles within a tar pit and several animals barking and chattering around it, watching
and waiting as the pathetic creature was sucked in completely by the tar.

Could it be the dinosaur's head is slightly above the tar's surface and a fat, greasy, yet
tiny rodent like clawed hand is reaching out with a large slice of bacon and waving it around
for every animal surrounding it to see, with a pathetic grin and swan song expressing a last
mournful love interest in the solidarity of its foes?

Do not fall for the melody of the monster, nor the pit which welcomes him and his own kind.

Re:The Eternal Spin Zone: Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 20:10 · Score: 0

It could also be that the Dinosaur remembered that tar pits didn't exist in his time.

Geeks Know Better by IonOtter · 2010-08-31 13:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Emperor: Now witness the firepower of this fully armed and operational battle station! *click* Fire at will, commander!
Crewfish: Sir, we have star destroyers!
Admiral Ackbar: It's a trap!

Zoe: So. Trap?
Mal: Trap.
Wash: Wait...how do you...
Mal: You were listenin' I take it?
Everyone: ....
Mal: Did'ja hear us fight?
Zoe: No?
Mal: Trap.

--
[End Of Line]

not true by 8086 · 2010-08-31 13:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

I don't know about the whole BRIC, but I've been practicing computer science for 13 years in India and haven't seen a single person use Linux as a desktop OS. Even as a server OS, people usually go for Windows instead of Linux, web servers being an exception. Most people just pirate MS products if they can't afford them. My two cents: MS realizes that people use mixed UNIX/Linux-Windows environments and that they're not going to gain any more market share by bashing open source, since it has 'arrived'. What they are trying to do is show interoperability with open source software, so that you buy Windows because it won't hate your Linux machines. Also, like everyone else, they're trying to build 'community' around the Windows programming environment, because that's where they've been lacking so far. ASP is losing to PHP because a lot more free code is available that can be quickly and lazily deployed. Another reason why this might be happening is because younger people who have grown up with open source software are now working at MS and they probably want to change the evil MS image.

Re:not true by HermMunster · 2010-08-31 14:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

The guys that make the WUBI product are from India.
I know India is heavily into math. It really would make sense to have more in India using Linux because more people would have examples to learn by, especially complex code such as the OS kernel.
If India is a lot like their nearby neighbors in Asia most people would be pirating Windows.

--
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Re:not true by martin-boundary · 2010-08-31 16:51 · Score: 1

I don't know about the whole BRIC, but I've been practicing computer science for 13 years in India

Dude! It's time to stop practicing and give it a go for real!
Re:not true by the_womble · 2010-08-31 18:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

I agree. Here in Sri Lanka most people have never heard of Linux, are terrified of trying anything new, and only ever use Linux because it is free of cost.
It is gaining some traction, but it still has a tiny desktop share (it is fairly widely used ons servers though).
It has also had a significant impact on MS's revenues. Corporates has successfully used the "we will switch to Linux" threat when MS has tried to make them actually pay for software (AFAIK the only software ANYONE here actually pays for is either very specialist stuff, Lotus Notes and some Adobe stuff - the first because they need the support, the others because it is more expensive to switch platforms than pay up).
Re:not true by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 20:14 · Score: 0

I'm in a university in America that has a high number of Indian graduate students, most of which prefer to use the Linux labs we have on campus. This is interesting, as most of the Americans tend to prefer the Windows labs.
I think part of what is going on is that the Indian students like the localization (i.e. foreign language) support that the Linux boxes (runing CentOS) have. However I can't confirm why so many of the Indian students use the Linux machines, because... well they're all speaking in some Indian foreign language all day. [I think it's Tamil or Telugu -- I've at least verified that it's not Hindi] And because almost all of them are cheaters [at least amongst the males], I don't want to associate with them academically. The few times that I have (like for group projects) have been really bad experiences.
Oh... and it really helps that the Linux labs don't have print quotas. The Indian students tend to print out entire copies of torrented textbooks... sometimes several copies at a time.
Re:not true by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 20:43 · Score: 0

You forgot to put several in bold.
Re:not true by devent · 2010-08-31 22:54 · Score: 1

Of course you need some investment to switch the platform, but after you take the switch the costs will get accumulated because a Linux server is more secure, more reliable and easier to administer. Also you never have the fear that MS is try "to make them actually pay". After MS is dropping support for WinXP and WS2003 they have to switch platforms anyway, so why not to the better and the more free product?

--
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
Re:not true by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2010-09-01 00:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

I know India is heavily into math.

My daughter's Sunday school in the temple has about 180 kids almost all of them in the top 5-10% of their schools. Would be considered stunning statistic. By law of averages no more than 20 of them should be in the top 10% of their school. But if you randomly pick 180 kids of all ethnicities in America from families with two college educated parents, with a median family income of 55K, you would find they too are in the almost always in the top 5-10% of their school. This is known as sample bias.
Most Indians you have come across in USA are from top schools working for top companies, fought hard to get to the top. Most Indians with that are vocal on the net, again hail from affluent families and top schools. So you are mistakenly concluding all Indians are great in Math.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Re:not true by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-01 01:04 · Score: 0

I've been practicing computer science for 13 years in India and haven't seen a single person use Linux as a desktop OS.
You probably wouldn't notice the difference.
Re:not true by HermMunster · 2010-09-01 02:34 · Score: 1

I'd heard the educational system in India emphasized math. To what degree I guess I don't know. I was under the understanding that it was the primary emphasis of the educational system in India.

--
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Re:not true by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2010-09-01 04:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'd heard the educational system in India emphasized math. To what degree I guess I don't know. I was under the understanding that it was the primary emphasis of the educational system in India.
They stress arithmatic in the lower elementary school a lot. Rote memorization of multiplication-tables and very fast arithmatic work is emphasized. I can still rattle off my multiplication table upto 16 times 16. I also memorized fractional multiplication tables. one "arai" times three "kaal" is three "araikaal" and such things. The Indian languages have named fractions for 0.5 (arai), 0.25(kaal), 0.125 (araikaal) and 0.0625 (maakaani). English has names only for 0.5 and 0.25. These were tough. But my aritmatic peaked in my entrance examn years. I knew by heart the logarithms of 2, 3, pi, and square roots of 2, 3 and 5!
But when it comes to higher mathematics like Algebra and Trignometry Indian system is not much better than American system. The American system places less emphasis on arithmatic and rote memorization and stresses understanding basic math concepts. By the time Calculus comes around, you will see the superiority of the American education system.
But vast majority of the students in both USA and India do not get do much higher mathematics. So the enormous investment America has done in emphasizing the math concepts is wasted and frittered away. Indians appear to be so much stronger in math. But remember Arithmatic is just one subset of Mathematics. In fact it is a small subset of higher mathematics.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Re:not true by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-01 09:11 · Score: 0

Well, obviously then you don't know anything about IT in India, despite being in 'CS' in India.
There are MILLIONS using linux as a desktop in India...
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/22/2038209
Re:not true by mahadiga · 2010-09-01 15:42 · Score: 1

Almost all entrepreneurs in India use Linux and Open source software.

--
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga

Options? by eyenot · 2010-08-31 13:50 · Score: 1

The only way MS could continue to benefit from a proprietary model in an open-source market would be to work toward more or less completely isolating a few markets from open-source (probably U.S., Gr. Britain, Australia).

Didn't Bill Gates already say he wants all of us to store all our "data files" in massive, sub-oceanic storages? While forcing us all to use processors that always ask Microsoft (and/or monopoly "trade" partner microprocessor firm) for permission before executing any set of machine instructions in lieu of perfecting "security"?

In a world where Adobe can try a Russian in an American court and send him back to Russia for imprisonment, where breaking rot-13 or simple substitution can get you a similar conviction for "espionage", where learning about and discussing the "trade" partner microprocessor firm's backroom-deal hidden opcodes is industrial terrorism or some crap, where America's number one terrorist threat are "the homeless" and where veterans are "right wing extremists", where sleeping on the couch while your son is in the backroom downloaded 0-day can get you gut-shot, and basically where owning a 486 will one day be considered an act of treason?

Of course, "being nice" might just equate to "pushing the envelope", i.e. attempting to buy-out "big open source" development.

Where the licenses don't allow for actually purchasing and closing the code, there's always the possibility of just buying up developers for the right price (right price? everybody has one), signing them to non-disclosure and corporate clearance (against "corporate espionage") agreements lasting a decade or longer with huge liabilities attached for leverage (where your options if you did spill the beans or take your "trade secrets" back to open-source would be either live on the street and be "uncollectible" or pay out the ass to a multi-million dollar damages judgement for the rest of your life, which may or may not be the life of a convicted corporate saboteur) giving them their own "department" while simultaneously closing/internally-buying-out the "department" and laying them all off, and considering the unemployment pay to be a small fee compared to losing product sales against the open-source "competitor".

. . . Just Say No to Open Source, Chummer!!!

--
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee

Do Not Trust Microsoft by QuietLagoon · 2010-08-31 13:50 · Score: 0, Redundant

The only thing that Microsoft cares about is profit. There have been far too many companies that have been sucked devoid of life by Microsoft in the past by those who falsely belived that Microsoft played "by the rules".

imo, the reality is that one of Microsoft's major contributions to business is the questionable exploitation of the far fringes of business legalities.

Re:Do Not Trust Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 14:14 · Score: 0

The only thing that Microsoft cares about is profit. There have been far too many companies that have been sucked devoid of life by Microsoft in the past [groklaw.net] by those who falsely belived that Microsoft played "by the rules".
It's true they were incredibly obnoxious (and illegal) bullies during the 1990's when they were in position to get away with it. However, the world has changed. The PC is fast becoming legacy technology, and MS itself has become a dreaded enterprise software company in the same boat as IBM, HP, and Oracle - just too damn big to turn around rapidly except via acquisitions.
Consumers and developers need to be wary of all the major commercial players, especially Google.
Re:Do Not Trust Microsoft by gnupun · 2010-08-31 16:06 · Score: 0, Flamebait

The only thing that Microsoft cares about is profit.
Do you breathe air, or eat food? That's profit, and there's nothing wrong with it. Working for profit is better than being some brainwashed OSS slave programmer who is not making money himself and is also destroying income source of fellow programmers.
Re:Do Not Trust Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 18:46 · Score: 0

Go back to your cave. I work on free software because I like doing it _and_ because I get nicely compensated for it. Yes, I might get an even better salary on a dull closed source in-house programming job but I chose to do this one. In other words, I decide what's profit for me.
If you lose your job because my open source organization happens to do well in the market... well, I'm sorry for that but that's how it works ("That's profit, and there's nothing wrong with it"). Try to get over it.
Re:Do Not Trust Microsoft by Bert64 · 2010-08-31 20:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Making a profit by providing a valuable service or product is one thing...
Actively harming your customers and those around them by getting them locked in to your proprietary and often inferior platform is quite another.
Also, proprietary software having to compete with open source is simply part of the market, if someone else can produce a cheaper and superior product than you, then your business model is failing and you will have to resort to underhanded tactics to prop it up.
At the end of the day, thats what proprietary software is... It might start off with an initial lead over open source but in any non niche market that attracts significant enough developer attention an open source alternative will soon start catching up.
At which point not only does it become very expensive to stay ahead, but once open source reaches the "good enough" level it will be chosen purely based on price.
Look at proprietary unix, sco and bsdi died pretty quickly when linux caught up and ran on the same hardware, other proprietary unixes fared a little better due to having their own dedicated hardware but are still either dead or being pushed into very small niches.
Windows keeps itself alive due to inertia and lock-in, how well do you think they would be doing if it was ms-dos vs freedos instead?

--
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Re:Do Not Trust Microsoft by gnupun · 2010-08-31 22:55 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Also, proprietary software having to compete with open source is simply part of the market, if someone else can produce a cheaper and superior product than you, then your business model is failing and you will have to resort to underhanded tactics to prop it up.
Free, slave labor product vs proprietary is not considered competitive by any means. It is considered anti-competitive in the business world and there are laws against such a practice, but since Linux is not owned by any company, there is no chance of getting sued for dumping low-cost product into the marketplace.
Re:Do Not Trust Microsoft by mcgrew · 2010-09-01 07:44 · Score: 1

if someone else can produce a cheaper and superior product than you, then your business model is failing and you will have to resort to underhanded tactics to prop it up.
That seems to be the way business is done these days -- look at the entertainment and other dying industries. But it's by far not the BEST way.
If someone can produce a cheaper and superior product, you change your business model to adapt. Improve your products and improve productivity, and if you can't, find a different product.
I think John Dillinger must teach business classes these days.

--
Free Martian Whores!

I live in Brazil. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 14:05 · Score: 0

The federal government is pro-FOSS; I work for a state government which is not (maybe even for political reasons -- that would be admitting your enemy's right).

Where I work (7 k+ employees), we had a pro-M$ IT director, followed by a yuppie (pro-M$, as in "I don't want to touch this") and now we have a really cool and nice guy, so workaholic one wonders about his health. Well, even if he is a great guy, we cannot just get rid of M$. A lot of our apps depend on .NOT -- I've heard developers are more or less feeling like dorks, since a main reason for that was that IE would rule forever and ever.

The evil guy guy and the yuppie made the environment even more pro-M$ (with Exhange and Sharepain_t, no less)... It would be great to adopt free apps (like Openoffice) at least, since abandoning Windows is too radical of a surgery; OTOH, having our size, we could force M$' hand... alas, it would not work. M$ simply can't play nice with non-Windows desktops.

And, for starters, we're a non-IT organization; discussing Linux would be considered a waste of time and resources (even though it saves money when compared to proprietary solutions). But the winds of change are getting stronger day-by-day...

On the bright side, a lot of companies now use Linux and desktops/notebooks with it are sold everywhere.

MS and open source by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 14:06 · Score: 0

I think it's probably because in the past, microsofts business model kind of revolved around stomping on competition before they could become competition, there are many companies that suffered due to microsoft just destroying them.

Open source is probably the only way newer (and some old ones) could compete against microsoft, and the model works against MS's model, so that probably has MS spooked.

Re:Wrong by HermMunster · 2010-08-31 14:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

Microsoft may be interested in open source, but the real question is, is the real open source interested in Microsoft? Tainting the water is a bad thing. Patent battles are going on like crazy today. It probably isn't a good thing to get open source involved in that if at all possible.

And, Microsoft's seemingly over night change of heart can be changed over night again. There's no historical evidence that they should be trusted.

Microsoft's version/vision of open source is much different than the official definition of open source. Even if they are making happy with something it isn't true open source.

We might not want to trust Microsoft at all, ever, because of their preexisting policy of embrace, extend, extinguish.

The few instances where some code was contributed are infinitesimally tiny overall. The size of open source code universe makes those Microsoft contributions look like an amoeba compared to the sun.

--
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.

Not the greedy evil company you think they are by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 14:16 · Score: 0

Of course MSFT is concerned with their bottom line, that's what a company is. If you think any for profit company is any different you are completely crazy.

But that doesn't mean that MSFT doesn't have a budget to assisting open source groups, helping both groups reach a larger market.

In the recent months MSFT has been pushing PHP on IIS and, as part of that, they submitted a native MSSQL dbal driver for the open source PHP group I work with. A few months before that they paid for a few of the developers in the project I work with to fly out to a conference and worked with them to get our project working on Windows Azure. They've also offered full MSDN licenses to anyone who is involved in the project.

Yes, they are a business, but they are not the greedy evil company everyone seems to like to think they are.

Re:Not the greedy evil company you think they are by symbolset · 2010-08-31 15:06 · Score: 0, Redundant

In the recent months MSFT has been pushing PHP on IIS...
If this isn't evil, I don't know what is.
Oh, yeah it's a trap. It's always a trap.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Re:Not the greedy evil company you think they are by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 15:36 · Score: 0

> Yes, they are a business, but they are not the greedy evil company everyone seems to like to think they are.
Part of being a business is understanding competition is good for business; it's kinda of playing: you got to have opponents to play.
From past experiences, for M$, good competition is dead competition.
> They've also offered full MSDN licenses to anyone who is involved in the project.
Was there some beverage included? You know, if you're into this naïve thing, it's common practice to ask for a badge -- not of paper, but a plastic one -- preferably with metallic paint...

Re:Wrong by lgw · 2010-08-31 14:18 · Score: 2, Funny

We need a sign!

Safety first: it has been [15] days since Microsoft last attacked.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.

ItsATrap by mysidia · 2010-08-31 14:19 · Score: 1

They are in the "embrace" stage, regarding most open source projects.

Possibly still working out plans for the extinguish phase, probably something involving patents and trying to steal away the open source product's credibility, by releasing their own equivalent version, and throwing the open source devs into a quagmire of litigation.

Simple reason. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 14:23 · Score: 0

Because they are getting trashed in the marketplace.

Re:Microsoft's strategy is as dumb as their softwa by icannotthinkofaname · 2010-08-31 14:25 · Score: 1

I disagree. I would think that stabbing someone in the back could also be done just by getting the target into a position where the killer can make him feel good with a hug. A pat on the back, some support, a...SHARP STABBING PAIN OF DEFEAT!

--
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.

Nice Doggy by MichaelSmith · 2010-08-31 14:30 · Score: 1

Microsoft's attitude to OSS is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until they can find a rock.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au

Re:Nice Doggy by gtall · 2010-08-31 22:18 · Score: 1

I like to think of them as being a snake at the dinner table with that astonished look in their eye after being accused of swallowing the whole turkey while a suspicious lump is sliding down their body.

Re:Wrong by causality · 2010-08-31 14:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

The article didn't say or even imply that Microsoft hasn't slammed open source, the whole point was that they're not doing it any more.

Yeah, that's usually called "pandering".

Like the summary explains, they're doing this out of a concern that anything else might alienate potential customers in various markets. That is not a change of heart. It's the same old self-serving Microsoft we've always known. They'd say that Jeffrey Dahmer was a really great guy if they thought it would boost sales. Microsoft hasn't changed. What will and won't alienate potential customers is the only thing that has changed here.

I'll put it very bluntly: anyone who believes otherwise is a naive fool who doesn't understand the first thing about this company or its history.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein

Standing joke by dhammabum · 2010-08-31 14:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Along with beowolf clusters and Russia doing stuff in reverse, we now have the equally tiresome joke that Microsoft is being nicer to open source. Why do these articles keep getting posted?

--
I am not a robot. I am a unicorn.

MS may 'love' open source ... by PPH · 2010-08-31 14:49 · Score: 1

... but they still won't give it a reach-around.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re:Wrong by jgagnon · 2010-08-31 14:49 · Score: 1

Here's your sign? :p

--
Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.

Re:Wrong by clodney · 2010-08-31 15:09 · Score: 1

So let's see. Microsoft will do anything that it thinks will boost sales.

Those bastards! Next thing you know they will have the audacity to start fixing bugs that people complain about, or implement features that are requested, or even make products that they think people will buy! Oh Noes! The horror. The horror!

Re:Wrong by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-08-31 15:13 · Score: 1

Patent battles are going on like crazy today. It probably isn't a good thing to get open source involved in that if at all possible.

Did you miss Apple's recent patent lawsuit against Google over Android (which, need I remind, is very much FOSS)?

And, Microsoft's seemingly over night change of heart can be changed over night again. There's no historical evidence that they should be trusted.

You can still deal with people whom you don't trust - you just assume the worse case scenario, you'll get as much from the deal as is legally entitled to you, and not a bit more. From there, trust may (or may not) eventually enter the picture.

Re:Wrong by causality · 2010-08-31 15:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

That's a fair point - but really - while that might work, my point is that we've got an editorial that doesn't really make the point you are trying to make. Microsoft is saying good things about open source in ALL OF ITS markets. For now. Changing what they've done in the past.

It seemed apparent to me that the point he was trying to make is not what you are responding to there. In fact I was about to make this point my own way until I saw that he had already raised it.

The point is that the general public seems to have an awfully short memory. Otherwise they'd be rightly skeptical of this move. They'd understand that a model of 100% open source software from operating systems to applications is antithetical to Microsoft's business model (for one, that sure would make it hard to implement vendorlock). That alone renders this move suspect. Then there's the long history of viewing Open Source as an enemy, both in the form of action and in the form of things like the Halloween documents.

If Microsoft is saying good things about Open Source in "all of its markets" it's only because of the ease with which the Internet would expose any attempt to say good things in Location A and bad things in Location B. That would just make them look stupid and would be counterproductive to their goal of pandering to the BRIC nations. They're ruthless bastards in my opinion but no one who takes a hard look at their use of long-term strategy would conclude that they are stupid.

GP was not denying that Microsoft is currently acting warm and fuzzy towards Open Source. I have no idea why you reiterate the editorial and must conclude you didn't correctly comprehend the GP. The grandparent is saying that Microsoft's new stance is not genuine and that a cursory understanding of the way this company does business would strongly affirm that position. If documentation of their history in Portuguese can promote such an understanding it could remedy the public's short memory.

The public sees that now Microsoft is being kinder to Open Source. Many seem to forget what the last 10-15 years of the Microsoft monopoly was like. And all it took was a change of PR strategy. They definitely got their dollar's worth from the marketing department this time.

You see this kind of short memory in politics all of the time. Why would it be a surprise when the same tendency is shown regarding business? In either case it doesn't survive contact with the facts so that's where a constructive remedy can be applied.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein

Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 15:17 · Score: 0

ORLY? I'm genuinely curious about that rock you've been living under.

Simple, really. by Tokerat · 2010-08-31 15:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Developers, developers, developers, developers.

Open Source projects for Windows mean more functionality, interoperability, and convenience for Windows users, and Microsoft doesn't have to do a damn thing to get it. Open Source and Linux are two different things, and Microsoft now realizes this.

--
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?

Re:Simple, really. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 16:11 · Score: 0

wwwwwooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo *gasp* wwwwwooooooooooooooooo *snort* *throws chair*
Re:Simple, really. by jmerlin · 2010-08-31 16:26 · Score: 1

Whatever happened to "embrace, extend, extinguish" ? Is it possible that they're trying this with the entire FOSS movement? Your points are certainly true -- however, it doesn't benefit Microsoft as much as it does the FOSS crowd for the likes of Linux distributions. FOSS applications that prove to be big hits and successful in the Windows world (from an end-user perspective, not from a technical expert perspective), their easy adaptation and uptake in Linux will make it that much more capable of doing everything Windows can (again, to the end-user, think.. your grandmother perhaps), and the capability of it to serve as a drop-in replacement with exactly the same favorite applications running on it leaves one asking "why Windows?"

No matter how you look at it, a large increase in FOSS software for Windows will also greatly benefit the Linux world towards moving into a competing spot with Microsoft in their most lucrative area: desktop operating system licensing. If Linux wins in this arena, Microsoft will effectively become the next IBM. So that raises the question, what's Microsoft's deception here? Maybe acquiring any possible patents or contributing patented code to FOSS projects with the promise of "we'll never charge a licensing fee to use this..... as long as it's on Windows.. of course......"? Whatever the hidden story is here, it'll be interesting to see what Microsoft does next (after Ballmer is removed, of course, because he's a moron).
Re:Simple, really. by Bert64 · 2010-08-31 20:44 · Score: 1

If MS have their way, the only open source being written will be dependent on proprietary windows functionality, making it very difficult to port it to any other platform.
Microsoft hate interoperability and have spent years trying to make it as difficult as possible to use anything else in any environment where you will encounter windows users... They will only ever tolerate any form of interoperability when it goes one way, so outlook will support standards like imap/pop3/smtp but it never works very well and the end goal is to push you into using exchange, which won't work properly with any other clients.

--
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!

buy software for your open source OS by animepunkw · 2010-08-31 15:26 · Score: 1

It's clear open source isn't going way, so why would MS close it's doors to potential opportunities. You can still buy software for your open source operating systems.

Keyword there by gmuslera · 2010-08-31 15:28 · Score: 1

"publicly"

Is bad press to be the big guy bullying the small one. But that don't mean that the big guy loves him, or that "pay" a slightly smaller guy (i.e. Oracle?) to do the dirty job.

Re:Wrong by causality · 2010-08-31 15:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

So let's see. Microsoft will do anything that it thinks will boost sales.

You accurately summarized my paragraph...

Those bastards! Next thing you know they will have the audacity to start fixing bugs that people complain about, or implement features that are requested, or even make products that they think people will buy! Oh Noes! The horror. The horror!

...yet managed to completely miss the point. Maybe you don't want to see the point, but I'll try.

The point, my eager-to-resort-to-mockery friend, is that appearing to appreciate Open Source is what Microsoft believes is in its interests today. It was not in Microsoft's interests yesterday (not literally 24 hours ago but figuratively speaking) and may not be in their interests tomorrow. Microsoft is doing this because they hope it will appeal to people who care about Open Source. The people who believe it are likely to find that Microsoft will continue this act for just long enough to lock them into using its software. At that point Microsoft will feel that the ruse has served its purpose and will revert to openly regarding Open Source as an enemy.

Now that you know what my point was, or now that it's more difficult for you to deny knowing what my point was (whichever may be the case), you can see plainly that it has absolutely nothing to do with fixing bugs, adding features, or introducing new products. If you weren't deliberately trolling, you provided a good example of what emotional knee-jerk reactions lead to.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein

Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 15:32 · Score: 0

lmao...mods...look up the blue collar comedy reference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erwv8vcZEoU

Re:Wrong by yyxx · 2010-08-31 15:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

Wow! They contributed Linux kernel extensions to let Linux run on their Hyper-V platform! Amazing! Will wonders never cease?

Re:Wrong by microbee · 2010-08-31 15:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

Your comments show a total misunderstanding of open source on your part.

Your point seems to be that we need to *trust* a person or a company before we *let* them join open source. And the trust should be perpetual. That is a darn big barrier. I doubt anyone is actually qualified.

I think Linus Torvalds once said it very well: "People don't need to trust me because of the GPL" (or sth to that effect). The GPL protects the copyrights of the contributors and makes sure it stays in the public domain forever. There is no requirement or need for a "trust" in the contributor (other than that the code he contributes does belong to him). For whatever reason, as long as the code is good with the appropriate license, we should welcome that.

Linux has long gone beyond 'us vs Microsoft'. Please let it go.

They're on the ropes by symbolset · 2010-08-31 15:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

They see they've missed the transition to mobile, they feel their empire slipping away. Deliberate incompatibility isn't working any more, so this is the change-up. Don't be confused though - as an entity Microsoft still sees open source as "open sores" - a cancer, in Steve Ballmer's words. They just realize that in some markets they have to be more diplomatic now.

In others? Well I'll just quote the first comment from the fine article:

Nicer? Not really! Here is an excerpt from an invitation for a seminar by Microsoft in Budapest/Hungary on 8.30.2010. "Program: 9:30 - 10:30 The art of selling against free, opensource Office competitors by Moritz Berger / Enterprise Tech Strategist (in English) 10:30 - 11:00 Coffee break 11:00 - 12:00 Technical teardown of OpenOffice by Moritz Berger / Enterprise Tech Strategist" by Anonymous (not verified) on 8/30/10 at 4:43 pm

I get these invitations from Microsoft too. Everybody in tech does. If they want to fool the public into believing they're all about competing on an open field they're going to have to get all of their messaging in-line everywhere, because we have this "Internet" thing now.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.

I GPL'ed and I liked it by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 15:45 · Score: 0

Related to the story, you might enjoy I GPL’ed, a parody about Microsoft contributing code to Linux under the GPL based on “I Kissed A Girl” by Katy Perry,

maybe... by iconic999 · 2010-08-31 15:45 · Score: 1

maybe, just maybe, M$ has realized FOSS is here to stay, and they just look like dip shits if they don't accept it and roll with it.

BYODF (Buy Your Own Damn Fuel) by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 16:09 · Score: 0

Just as open source is rightly WYODD (Write Your Own Damn Drivers)
These launch ventures are BYODF (Buy Your Own Damn Fuel)

Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 16:25 · Score: 0

Microsoft may be interested in open source, but the real question is, is the real open source interested in Microsoft?

I like how you can use 'real' to define a term to mean anything. "Oh, that BSD/GPL project accepted Microsoft code? Then it's not *real* OSS!" Last week I heard word that HermMunster doesn't have a *real* penis.

Re:Wrong by Potor · 2010-08-31 16:27 · Score: 1

Dude, you posted that 40 minutes after my comment. I guess time-travel should be part of my skill set?

Moreover, your revised point is the same as the article: MS is changing its tune (even if merely opportunistically), and yet you claim that the article gets its history wrong ...

Microsoft's evil plan by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 16:46 · Score: 0

Microsoft's plan:
1)Claim that it loves open source
2)Release some open source project (for some time)
3)Take the oppurtunity to copy source code and insert it into their non-free copyrighted programs ....... and finally
4)Patent these programs and sue the companies making open source software

So basically they're making themselves irrelevant? by SheeEttin · 2010-08-31 17:02 · Score: 1

So basically, Microsoft is making itself irrelevant?
If you support or recommend open-source software, people will use it. If they use it, they aren't paying you.
Thus, your business becomes built on a foundation of others' OSS software, and at that point, you're selling something people can get elsewhere for free.
Same thing has been tried, and unless you're IBM and you're aggressively selling to big business/enterprise, you don't make a whole lot of money, and you're likely to fold in a few years.

Oracle makes microsoft look nice by comparison by voss · 2010-08-31 17:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

Oracle is already killing off opensolaris, suing google over android, and who knows what will happen to mysql
or openoffice down the road.

Microsoft paranoia has blinded us to the enemy in our midst. Bill Gates never did as as much damage to open source
as Larry Ellison is doing.

Re:Oracle makes microsoft look nice by comparison by GameboyRMH · 2010-09-01 07:16 · Score: 1

MariaDB is to MySQL what Illumos is to OpenSolaris. And Maybe Go-OO will be the OO.org replacement.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:Wrong by Giometrix · 2010-08-31 17:24 · Score: 1

Microsoft may be interested in open source, but the real question is, is the real open source interested in Microsoft? Tainting the water is a bad thing. Patent battles are going on like crazy today. It probably isn't a good thing to get open source involved in that if at all possible.

And, Microsoft's seemingly over night change of heart can be changed over night again. There's no historical evidence that they should be trusted.

Microsoft's version/vision of open source is much different than the official definition of open source. Even if they are making happy with something it isn't true open source.

We might not want to trust Microsoft at all, ever, because of their preexisting policy of embrace, extend, extinguish.

The few instances where some code was contributed are infinitesimally tiny overall. The size of open source code universe makes those Microsoft contributions look like an amoeba compared to the sun.

Except it hasn't been overnight... if you follow some of the Microsoft guys on Twitter you'll see that they are actively trying to change Microsoft's way of thinking.

As a side note, personally I don't think there is an ulterior motive to Microsoft's change of heart with Open Source. Microsoft's found a happy medium between closed source and open source. Notice that software it sells (to end users) remains closed source, while software (or more accurately, libraries) available to developers are being opened up. Opening up the libraries makes developers happy and helps them contribute code or ideas back into the libraries, which Microsoft can go use in their services and software.

--
Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com

They are "only" anti-GPLv3 now by MrvFD · 2010-08-31 17:26 · Score: 1

I think they are merely backing up step by step. First they only supported permissive licenses, since they could take it and close it themselves. Now the next step is GPLv2, since they clearly cannot oppose it. The new things seems to be anti-GPLv3 - that is, continuing the usual software restriction business by making open source non-open via software patents.

But clearly it's a step forwards again, a forced one. And from business perspective and keeping their existing business model they are doing just the right thing, giving up only when it's absolutely necessary, while keeping their public picture as shiny as possible. I just think we are far from getting to the point that the old proprietary software houses wouldn't try to take away the freedoms of the free software by any means possible. If only the US would lead the way with evaporating software patents...

They are just going for patents. by miffo.swe · 2010-08-31 17:54 · Score: 1

My take on this is that Microsoft just decided to go for patents extortion instead of license sales. If everyone adopts GPLv3 that would be impossible which is why i think Microsoft works so hard fighting GPLv3.

--
HTTP/1.1 400

GUIs GUIs GUIs by Tablizer · 2010-08-31 17:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

MS may be eyeing the market niche that IBM pretty much dominates (IMNSHO) while still making hardware and creating software; services that mix and match across whatever has in place and make it work. I've seen the first steps in this direction with their various systems management tools, especially for virtualization. The Office cash cow won't last forever and I think they are getting that. Finally.

That's where I see MS cutting a nice niche for itself without having to dominate OS's. Their GUI's are usually more intuitive than OSS I have to say. No, they are not perfect, but so far MS does GUI's better than OSS.

I suspect MS spends more time road-testing their GUI's with actual users than OSS products. It's not that they are smarter, they just log the GUI tester hours that most OSS don't or can't. "Basement" coders simply cannot afford such testing sessions, and must rely on email etc. Think about it.

I'm just the messenger, don't shootmod me, please.

--
Table-ized A.I.

Re:GUIs GUIs GUIs by alexhs · 2010-08-31 21:53 · Score: 1

Their GUI's are usually more intuitive than OSS
Let me respectfully disagree. Their GUIs are more polished.
IMHO, their interface has become less intuitive since Win9x/Win2000.
Win9x/Win2000, GNOME, OS X have a coherent UI. That is less the case with WinXP, and Vista, Win7 are a mess from my point of view. And I probably lack experience with KDE to comment fairly, but I think that while it has coherent UI, it is too cluttered.

--
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Re:GUIs GUIs GUIs by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 22:08 · Score: 0

Microsoft GUIs are not that good in itsself. They still beat OSS because MS at least delivers some GUIs. Most OSS people still don't get that a GUI and CLI serve different purposes and a well-rounded product should ship BOTH.
But I really like that with Vista and 7 they actually improved on both sides. I can finally like the new control panel (never got used to XP style) and at the same time they improved on the CLI with Powershell. I still miss a good terminal emulator though.
Re:GUIs GUIs GUIs by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 22:48 · Score: 0

It isn't just that MS do more testing, but that they pay attention to the results.
Re:GUIs GUIs GUIs by qwijibo · 2010-08-31 23:45 · Score: 1

We recently had to upgrade from Office 2003 to 2007 at work. Everyone agrees that the new interface is far less intuitive and provides no benefit. The only benefit of the new interface is that it's so foreign to everyone that someone who learned on Office 2007 would have a harder time switching to Open Office. I really don't think that GUI design change was motivated by any customer input.
Re:GUIs GUIs GUIs by Tablizer · 2010-09-01 04:07 · Score: 1

We recently had to upgrade from Office 2003 to 2007 at work. Everyone agrees that the new interface is far less intuitive and provides no benefit.

The problem with Office apps to begin with is that there are too many features to squeeze into hierarchical menus. It was a mess before Office 2007 and stayed that way after. Thus, MS just traded one mess for another going to 2007.
One minor benefit of 2007 is that the menus stay put. The dynamic tool-bars of pre-2007 were problematic when some configuration snafu or add-on messed up the placement of the dynamic tool bars, making it hard or impossible to find certain menus. Version 2007 nailed them to a fixed place at least. (I've yet to see them move.) A consistent mess is better than an inconsistent mess.
As far as an alternative or enhancement to big hierarchical menus, a sub-string search would be better in my opinion, kind of like a little app-specific feature-Google. And the most-used would bubble to the top and be automatically visible (or manually put at the top). One could put in their own synonyms and notes to help them find a given option later. It's time to graduate into relational GUI control instead of OOP-influenced GUI's in my opinion when the option quantity exceeds a threshold. But that's another long, winding, and contentious topic.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:GUIs GUIs GUIs by Tablizer · 2010-09-01 05:08 · Score: 1

I'm commenting mostly on my experience with their applications and commercial tools, not MS OS's. I have to spend more time in the manual finding stuff with OSS than with MS tools. Yes, MS's GUI's are cluttered and inconsistent, but generally one can find what they want by hunting and exploring. I run into more dead-ends with OSS. MS may have 5 different ways to do the same thing, but at least there's an organic path to the way, even if it's a wondering and stumbling path. The MS drunk gets home at 5am, the OSS drunk becomes roadkill.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:GUIs GUIs GUIs by tuppe666 · 2010-09-01 06:06 · Score: 1

MS may be eyeing the market niche that IBM pretty much dominates (IMNSHO) while still making hardware and creating software; services that mix and match across whatever has in place and make it work. I've seen the first steps in this direction with their various systems management tools, especially for virtualization. The Office cash cow won't last forever and I think they are getting that. Finally.
That's where I see MS cutting a nice niche for itself without having to dominate OS's. Their GUI's are usually more intuitive than OSS I have to say. No, they are not perfect, but so far MS does GUI's better than OSS.
I suspect MS spends more time road-testing their GUI's with actual users than OSS products. It's not that they are smarter, they just log the GUI tester hours that most OSS don't or can't. "Basement" coders simply cannot afford such testing sessions, and must rely on email etc. Think about it.
I'm just the messenger, don't shootmod me, please.
I'm tired of this untruth. OSS is made up of many applications some with good interfaces and some with...not so good. A good counter example that everyone including Microsoft agrees with would be Firefox 1 vs IE6 you can see this in the direction that IE is heading. The second untruth is about basement coders...Its not true of the kernel, most are paid...its not true of the Desktop again most are paid, but there are many basement coders in the OSS world hell basement coders is how most major computer companies started so why is there something wrong with that. :)
Re:GUIs GUIs GUIs by GameboyRMH · 2010-09-01 06:23 · Score: 1

I agree. Win7 sure is shiny and the start menu is brilliant, but apart from that it's mostly LESS intuitive and more complicated than XP. XP's intuitiveness was about on par with 9x/2k IMO, but not as intuitive as Gnome.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:GUIs GUIs GUIs by Tablizer · 2010-09-01 11:11 · Score: 1

A good counter example that everyone including Microsoft agrees with would be Firefox 1 vs IE6 you can see this in the direction that IE is heading.

I don't see that much difference, to be frank. At least not in the features I use. The spailchecker and the add-ons are the main things I like about FireFox. (Firefox has a crappy Favorites manager interface, IMO.)

The second untruth is about basement coders...Its not true of the kernel, most are paid...its not true of the Desktop again most are paid,
But the budgets for extended GUI testing with pools of actual users is probably smaller than what MS has available.

OSS world hell basement coders is how most major computer companies started so why is there something wrong with that
Darwinian forces tend to remove poor interfaces for start-ups. Most fail. You can make a decent interface by spending a lot of time and effort and testing, and you can make a decent interface by throwing a bunch of different designs out into the public and see what sticks.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:GUIs GUIs GUIs by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-02 01:45 · Score: 0

but so far MS does GUI's better than OSS.
You know that is a matter of opinion. Personally I think KDE and Gnome are far better GUIs than Windows. Plus it matters what you are used to. Hell I'm as lost on a Windows7 or Vista machine as a Window's users on KDE. I don't use it so I don't know it. After using "Other" GUIs for years I really do find a Windows Desktop limited and lacking certain functions that OSS GUIs have had for years.
As for "Basement coders" wake up and smell the coffee. Most of the heavy lifting in development is being done by big companies not out of a basement. I don't think Red Hat, IBM, Novell just to mention a few are ran out of a basement.
More intuitive? I really don't think so again it is what you are used to. I have started a lot of new users off on Linux (80 year old Grandmas) and they now like it better than MS and they find KDE and Gnome very intuitive and easy to use. What "Makes" Windows easier to use is people are used to using it. Not that is it really easier to use or more intuitive.
Re:GUIs GUIs GUIs by Decker-Mage · 2010-09-02 15:49 · Score: 1

Not just Microsoft. Speaking as a regular road-tester who approaches every software/hardware package as knowing nothing, all of the big players, whether corporate or larger F/OSS development teams, do this. All the larger firms are able to hire anthropologists, psychologists, and others who study human behavior as part of their development and testing teams. The first thing I did when I started a project was to go to the line and learn the current process, what people liked doing and their pain points. Then I'd go off and do the heavy lifting in terms of architecture, engineering, and management buy-in. After everything was good to go, then I'd go back and do the implementation and further tweaks, again with the people working on the line. If they don't like it, they either won't use it or will drag their feet which makes the whole exercise worthless in my opinion. And I used standard anthropological ethnographic techniques learned from my mother when she went out into the field. Frankly, if I were to suggest one area to add under anyone's IT belt, a bit of cultural anthropology is highly suggested. Sociology of Organizations is also highly useful.

As for intuitiveness, well they are all equally non-intuitive here We could have a hell of a discussion thread here just on which components belong in the File, View, Edit, Tools and Help menus. That doesn't even count application specific menus. The last time I met something intuitive, especially on the programming side, it was called an Amiga. [I was highly involved in the design of Scripit and FinalCalc, both by Khalid Aldoseri, with literally hundreds of hours of time spent in conferencing back when it cost serious bucks.] So far as I'm concerned, no machine has come even close since. I'm not holding my breath expecting this to change. Hell, I'll be long planted and mowed regularly at government expense.

--
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go

Re:Wrong by Robert+Zenz · 2010-08-31 19:25 · Score: 3, Informative

As far as I know, they were *forced* to because they used GPL-Licensed code.

Re:Wrong by c0lo · 2010-08-31 19:37 · Score: 0, Troll

So let's see. Microsoft will do anything that it thinks will boost sales.

You accurately summarized my paragraph...

Those bastards! Next thing you know they will have the audacity to start fixing bugs that people complain about, or implement features that are requested, or even make products that they think people will buy! Oh Noes! The horror. The horror!

...yet managed to completely miss the point. Maybe you don't want to see the point, but I'll try.

Speaking about missing the point, he might be in your company, then.
Because you missed a point in her/his reply as well: Microsoft will not do quite anything to boost the sales, and here are some examples:start fixing bugs, implement features that are requested.
Not saying that she/he intended the above as a point, but I'm still seeing it as a point even if not intended.

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.

Re:Wrong by ozmanjusri · 2010-08-31 19:43 · Score: 1

Don't those extensions only really benefit Microsoft though?

That's not very good evidence of a change of heart.

--
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."

Re:Wrong by poetmatt · 2010-08-31 19:50 · Score: 0, Troll

this however, has no actual factual basis. MS has never done anything to show people that they've actually changed in this sense.

As noted, a leopard can't change its spots, and people are not ignorant to "embrace, extend extinguish". There is no way for microsoft to be truly pro open source until a MS license is made to be fully GPL v3 compatible and not simply declared open source by OSI, and since that will never happen, neither will MS being supportive of open source.

This is like saying "we support mono", or "we support silverlight" and calling them open source when they really create open source issues.

Re:Wrong by ozmanjusri · 2010-08-31 19:54 · Score: 1

Didn't they do that because they were dropping the whole idea of building dynamic languages on the CLR?

Releasing the project under a permissive license means they can let IronPython and IronRuby gradually fade away without taking responsibility for killing them off.

--
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."

Re:Wrong by Bert64 · 2010-08-31 19:58 · Score: 1

Their contributions to the linux kernel were only open sourced under pressure, are poorly maintained and only exist to promote their own hypervisor system...

Their other contributions have pretty much all been windows specific, so continuing the trend of trying to lock people in.

--
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!

Re:Wrong by poetmatt · 2010-08-31 19:59 · Score: 4, Informative

ah yes, and hyper v was contributed why again? let's not act like it was out of the goodness of their hearts. It was contributed because it violated the GPL license.

It should be noted on this actually, that this speaks volumes about the politeness of open source developers, because they absolutely could have pushed for a lot more to resolve the violation.

Re:Wrong by Eggnogium · 2010-08-31 20:06 · Score: 0, Troll

Microsoft could contribute 3 engineers to every open source project on the internet and /. would still call it a dirty scheme. Face it, there's not a single thing Microsoft could do that wouldn't have 80% of this site's users up in arms.

Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 20:06 · Score: 0

"stays in the public domain forever"

GPL'd code is by definition NOT in the public domain. Public domain is material that is not covered by copyright, the GPL is a license enforced with copyright.

Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 20:25 · Score: 0

And it isn't as simple as Linus' "You don't need to trust me because of the GPL", which is why these days all contributions to Linux now have to have both an attribution of "Signed Off By:" as well as confirmation that anybody using or contributing to Linux has rights to any patents covering contributions. Plus Linus wants to know that the code HAS BEEN TESTED by SOMEONE HE TRUSTS to know that it works correctly.

In other words, yes trust really DOES matter... at EVERY step of the way.

Who does Linus "pull" changes from via Git? Do you think he'd blindly pull from someone from Microsoft just because of the GPL? I think you really misunderstand how PEOPLE work in general. If you give me something, I either have to EVALUATE IT, or I have to EVALUATE YOU. If I know you know what you're doing, I can take it -- or I have to know that the WORK you've handed me is good and correct. In other words, either I trust YOU or I work to be able to trust the WORK you've given me. Either way, TRUST is required.

Re:Wrong by Raumkraut · 2010-08-31 20:30 · Score: 1

Or perhaps, being technical types, you and clodney are overestimating the importance of technical quality. End-user sales are increased through marketing, not quality products.

Re:Wrong by ingilizdili · 2010-08-31 20:39 · Score: 1

Anyone who believes that any company has a heart to change "is a naive fool who doesn't understand the first thing about" companies at all :)

--
literacle.com

Re:Wrong by xtracto · 2010-08-31 20:56 · Score: 1

Mhhhmmm... I am skeptic (after all... I do science).

Until the guy who stated that Linux is a cancer because of the GPL is the CEO of the company, I won't believe that such a company is playing "nicely" with Open Source.

I see their current position just as their next towards eliminating this cancer in order to embrace, extend and extinguish.

--
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'

Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 21:06 · Score: 0

BTW, this other link explains better the position of Microsoft vs open source...

Re:Wrong by c0lo · 2010-08-31 21:47 · Score: 1

Or perhaps, being technical types, you and clodney are overestimating the importance of technical quality. End-user sales are increased through marketing, not quality products.

Hey, again, as a matter of nuance: I never said that this is a valid point (i.e. never said that quality is the only factor that drives the sales). I only said that "MS will not quite do everything to boost the sales" is a point.

As for my opinion on the validity of this point: of course "playing nice" (or pretending, thereof) costs a heap less than "fix the crap". This is not to say that MS doesn't fix the bugs or doesn't implement requested features (because they eventually do it, otherwise no need for Windows Update). And is also not to say that one is not allowed to hope for a better quality/level-of-service from MS.

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.

Re:Wrong by ydrol · 2010-08-31 22:12 · Score: 1

Im not sure if English is the first language of most nit-pickers here, but most of the time saying "entity X will do anything to accomplish Y" is not to be taken as absolute truth, but as a general position. Arguing over the finer points of what entails "anything" is indeed to miss any point the speaker is trying to make, and just being argumentative for its own sake.

But continuing on that diversion, for example fixing bugs in the short term is usually either,

1. Part of a contract obligation - which were terms of the original sale. Buy this AND this support.. OR
2. Enhance long term sales (imagine turnover if Microsoft never fixed bugs)

Impact of FOSS bashing on developer hires? by ogrisel · 2010-08-31 22:31 · Score: 1

Also don't you think that the FOSS bashing policy by MS was also turning off a large amount of very skilled developers who likes to work with opensource tools and contribute to open source projects? Is this unintended consequence negligible compared to other corporate strategic areas such as sales and competition vs Linux servers?

Re:Wrong by c0lo · 2010-08-31 22:49 · Score: 1

Arguing over the finer points of what entails "anything" is indeed to miss any point the speaker is trying to make, and just being argumentative for its own sake.

Or just going on a tangent and (pleasant as it would be) waste some more time on /.? (relax, cool down, unwind, start seeing colors where only black-and-white used to be)

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.

Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2010-08-31 23:13 · Score: 0

they eventually do it, otherwise no need for Windows Update

Windows Update isn't only or even primarily for fixing bugs or introducing new features. It's at least equally as important for keeping your WGA/DRM shackles nice and tight.

Right by HermMunster · 2010-08-31 23:56 · Score: 1

My comments have little to do with trust, except in regards to trusting their commitment to open source, and their willingness to adhere to the definition of open source.

Tainting the waters is pretty self explanatory. Many people didn't want to look at some "leaked" Microsoft code for the possibility that Microsoft could claim Linux was tainted by the release. Think SCO, in how they claimed that Linux was copying huge chunks of code.

SCO's code contributions seemed clearly in favor of Linux and open source when they contributed and even began producing their own distribution. Later SCO sued IBM, Novell, and several other companies that contributed (and some who simply used open source). SCO's claims were wide and varied, and even radical. Claims were made that there were millions of lines of copied code in Linux. Later they claimed that Linux copied the structure of Unix and thus that structure gave them dominion over all Linux. And, they were even selling patent indemnification.

I did not say "*trust" a person or company before we *let* them join". I said that we don't want to trust them to adhere to the concept of open source as it was defined some 17 years ago, because they have been known to embrace, extend, extinguish. I question your understanding of the history of open source, Microsoft, and their policy of embrace, extend, extinguish. Microsoft's definition of open source is clearly in conflict with the definition of open source as it was defined 17 years ago. I doubt few would claim the definition has evolved in any significant way due mainly to the fact that it hasn't had to.

The GPL is only a single license. V2 is a single release of that license. V3 was created to close a loop hole that was exploited in the V2 version of that license by Microsoft. It came about because of the actions of a company that made a commitment to kill Linux and to destroy open source (they described it as a cancer). You find it hard to comprehend that Microsoft was doing the same thing as SCO as a process of their agreements with Novell (and others) don't you?

Please go back and read Microsoft's definition of open source as they have it posted on their web site. Then at least try to show you have an understanding of open source (and that it isn't at all just one license), and try to understand that it has nothing to do with public domain.

The point is that companies can support open source, can contribute, and in the end sue claiming patent and other violations. It is possible to embrace, extend, extinguish open source. During this process they bring fear and distrust while reinforcing their own vision of it. Creation of licenses that conflict with the true definition can be used to muddy the waters. Open source gains influence as the software is used (not only in its' creation) and if a company committed to killing open source can diminish true open source by selling a cheap knock off that is limited to one operating system (Windows) and business thinks it is the real deal, then you are effectively extinguishing the real deal.

--
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.

Re:Wrong by HermMunster · 2010-09-01 00:01 · Score: 1

In terms of time frames, in the real scheme of things, comparatively, over the past 3 decades, this is an over night change. And, even if it works for Microsoft it might not work for open source. Just as easily as they allege change in support of open source that can also change over night.

--
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.

Re:Wrong by HermMunster · 2010-09-01 00:05 · Score: 2, Informative

You are living proof that embrace, extend, extinguish works.

Open source was defined many years ago in an effort to ensure that it would not be subjugated and perverted, and that has done it's job for the past 17 years. Microsoft's posted open source license directly conflicts with that definition. Hence, it isn't the real thing.

--
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.

Re:Wrong by shadowofwind · 2010-09-01 00:05 · Score: 1

Many people see no virtue beyond expedience. Argue with them for a lifetime and they'll never understand your point.

(N)icer (T)o (O)pen (S)ource by gratuitous_arp · 2010-09-01 00:18 · Score: 1

The "Nicer To Open Source" (NT OS) initiative certainly played its part in attracting users to GNU/Linux and other open source software! Who would have known its been going on for so long?

Re:Wrong by Seeteufel · 2010-09-01 00:19 · Score: 1

The point is that they continue to harass open source, sabotage open source and open standards policies in others nations. Their trolls are also not getting better.

Re:Wrong by Seeteufel · 2010-09-01 00:24 · Score: 1

True. But that does not put Guido Sohne back to life or revoke the stupid patent laws Microsoft lobbying imposed on developing nations. And you know what, it is difficult to tell what the self-interest of a company actually is.

All available evidence says otherwise by walterbyrd · 2010-09-01 00:38 · Score: 1

Microsoft is the greedy evil company we think they are, and then some.

Patent bullying, funding the scox scam, astro-turfing, fake TCO studies, fake benchmarking studies, outright lying to the US congress about difficulty of removing msie from windows, outright lying to the EU about difficulty of removing media player from windows, the OOXML scam, having Washington taxpayers pay for $11 million bridge on MS campus. Firing thousands of US workers, and hiring h1bs to replace the US workers, and all the while crying to US congress about the desperate shortages of US workers.

I could go on. But you could probably learn more here:

http://techrights.org/?stories

Re:Wrong by whereiswaldo · 2010-09-01 00:50 · Score: 1

Look at the relative 'failure' of sub-notebooks with Linux preinstalled. Most people expected to run Windows apps on them and I'll bet a very large number were returned to the store for this reason (otherwise why would they not be offered anymore?).
Assume for a moment that most people do want to run Windows for whatever reason (familiarity, MS office, etc...).

Then they start getting into open source software on Windows and seeing all that is out there like games, word processors, ad nauseum. At some point the masses will realize that most open source software is also cross-platform. Hey, so I don't need Windows to run all this stuff? Then the landscape changes.

Re:Wrong by psbrogna · 2010-09-01 01:08 · Score: 1

Yes that's right: "Those bastards." Though I believe you're being sarcastic, your bullet points make it easy to clearly explain that while what MS does is not uncommon, it does make them bastards. All of your bullet points are examples of value added for consumers. The propaganda they spread regarding their stance toward Open Source (which are just words not action and frequently a position they reverse on) is an example of them using deceit to positively influence the market's perception of MS (presumably to gain market share) which at the end of the day probably takes value away from consumers. I for one prefer honesty in my vendors.

different "drivers" behind each side by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-01 01:10 · Score: 0

I'm not sure I understand the need to debate this at all. Doesn't the open source community have a much different motivation behind it than MS, Apple or any company for that matter?
I don't know, it seems to me that there is a more honorable purpose driving OSS developers which is to make the computing world better for everyone, to keep the internet free etc. It's somewhat selfless if you ask me. MS is only trying to make things better to serve their share holders. If they could control everything they would. So? This is a surprise?
It's like this to me: there's a store down the street that sells water, and I've decided to tap my own spring and give water away for free. The store may try and stop me but in the end they will lose because once the idea that we can do a little footwork and get our own water spreads no one will be able to monopolize it anymore. Ok, well then the store will try to sell me air now... for a while....

Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-01 01:13 · Score: 0

Yeah sure. There are so many open source games that people will flock to Linux. Fail.

Re:Wrong by GameboyRMH · 2010-09-01 01:44 · Score: 1

Hahaha nice try, but you'll have to step up your game if you want to goatse any Slashdotters.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:Wrong by pinkushun · 2010-09-01 01:51 · Score: 1

It's up to us to keep their past FUD tactics as public knowledge. We mustn't give Microsoft the chance to fake a new image to those who are unfamiliar with their past wrong doings!

They play nice only while it benefits them by pinkushun · 2010-09-01 01:58 · Score: 1

*rant warning*

any attack on open source would be seen as a foreign company attacking local software projects

I bet they considered this in the beginning, but just didn't give a damn because they only thought of themselves, and not of the betterment of the software community.

Re:Wrong by GameboyRMH · 2010-09-01 01:59 · Score: 1

They're just being a little more diplomatic since they don't have the industry by the balls anymore. And saying good things (or less bad things, remember the Win7 retail training materials teaching retail workers how to diss Linux?) about open source is about as far as it goes with them. They're just sweet, sweet words that turn into bitter yellow wax in your ears. Anything they give to the open-source community is either experimental, academic stuff with little to no real-world use (the various little doodads from their research divisions) or is only given so that they can push their proprietary tech more effectively (Mono, Silverlight, Hyper-V kernel extensions).

I challenge anyone to find an exception to this rule.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Wha? by symbolset · 2010-09-01 02:37 · Score: 1

I must admit that Linux adoption seems to have slowed and the amount of press has considerably declined.

Hm. Last I heard Google was moving over 200,000 units a day just with Android, and that all together the different versions of Linux accounted for a full half of all smartphone operating systems. I also heard that the rate continues to accellerate.

Linux does not appear to be slowing down. Instead it looks like Linux is leading the shift to mobile platforms, a full peer with Apple.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.

Re:Wha? by HermMunster · 2010-09-01 04:16 · Score: 1

I totally agree that Android is a massive push toward OSS. Though this is the case, and Android is a top notch product, and it has quality oozing from it, it is not generally considered to be anything more than a gadget control system. That's much different than Linux on the desktop or many of the other OSS projects.
Granted that will create developers developers developers for the platform and some of that will engender support for Linux itself. But really... TiVO is Linux underneath yet it doesn't actually get much acclaim as a Linux product. It is a gadget control system.

--
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.

Re:Wrong by psbrogna · 2010-09-01 02:49 · Score: 1

While the parent poster didn't mention games, a lot of the recent award winning games that truly do innovate (vice this year's fresh paint on leading Windows titles) are cross-platform. And of course Firefox, Filezilla, Thunderbird, Google & Open Office have all been complete flops- they'll never draw a crowd. MS is losing 10% browser share a year. It won't be long now.

Speaking as a developer I could never go back to MS-Land. I've grown fond of a desktop that responds when I click instead of searing the Windows hourglass into my retina.

My favorite example by fwarren · 2010-09-01 02:58 · Score: 1

Like this sign http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/3/19/

--
vi + /etc over regedit any day of the week.

MicroSoft hosts Denver Open Source Users Group by peter303 · 2010-09-01 03:23 · Score: 1

We are very thankful for for their generous donation of a meeting room. Several MSFT employees attend the meetings, but dont often make presentations. The group mostly talks about Linux and Java topics.

Re:Wrong by HermMunster · 2010-09-01 04:08 · Score: 1

Twitter posts are about as cheap a PR release as you can get. PR is nothing but private reality.

--
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.

Re:Wrong by OldSoldier · 2010-09-01 04:31 · Score: 1

The point, my eager-to-resort-to-mockery friend, is that appearing to appreciate Open Source is what Microsoft believes is in its interests today. It was not in Microsoft's interests yesterday (not literally 24 hours ago but figuratively speaking) and may not be in their interests tomorrow.

While I agree with you 100% you and the other poster are arguing different points. IMHO the other poster is complaining about MS's lack of vision. He would rather see a MS that was visionary enough to see a future where companies like MS and OpenSource could co-exist side by side and would actively move to make that vision a reality. Instead we see MS doing what most companies do, assess market need and move to fill that need.

Taking the visionary path is hard for a mature company. Blocking the visionary path (as MS perhaps did yesterday in your words) is short sighted, but also something most companies do while they wrestle with the visionary change that's before them. MS is large enough to do both... specifically put up the blocking strategy while they formulate a co-exist strategy and perhaps that is what they are doing as we speak.

First they laugh... by srobert · 2010-09-01 08:12 · Score: 1

First they laugh at you.
Then they ignore you.
Then they fight you.
And then you win.

And then they claim that they have always been your friend.

Re:Wrong by HermMunster · 2010-09-01 08:55 · Score: 1

Dell was and is a company that offers Linux pre-installed. No more than a few weeks ago they expanded their offerings.

There's no factual evidence that more Linux pre-installed machines were returned than Windows machines. In fact, several of the most prominent companies that offer Linux as a choice stated that there was no greater a percentage of Linux returns than Windows returns. In fact, no company stated that Linux return ratios were higher.

--
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.

Re:Wrong by causality · 2010-09-01 10:45 · Score: 1

So let's see. Microsoft will do anything that it thinks will boost sales.

You accurately summarized my paragraph...

Those bastards! Next thing you know they will have the audacity to start fixing bugs that people complain about, or implement features that are requested, or even make products that they think people will buy! Oh Noes! The horror. The horror!

...yet managed to completely miss the point. Maybe you don't want to see the point, but I'll try.

Speaking about missing the point, he might be in your company, then. Because you missed a point in her/his reply as well: Microsoft will not do quite anything to boost the sales, and here are some examples:start fixing bugs, implement features that are requested. Not saying that she/he intended the above as a point, but I'm still seeing it as a point even if not intended.

Actually that's perfectly consistent with what I said. By not fixing bugs Microsoft can always promise that the next version will solve all of the users' problems. That boosts sales. So in this case, the right thing to do would be to fix the bugs, but not fixing them leads to more sales. Therefore Microsoft doesn't do such a good job of fixing them.

Nice try. Maybe you don't like I said, but clutching at straws like this to discredit it is rather unbecoming.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein

Re:Wrong by exomondo · 2010-09-01 11:07 · Score: 1

Didn't they do that because they were dropping the whole idea of building dynamic languages on the CLR?

Because they were, yes. So they handed it off to the community.

Releasing the project under a permissive license means they can let IronPython and IronRuby gradually fade away without taking responsibility for killing them off.

Why would they fade away? Not everything that gets released as open source dies.

Re:Wrong by clodney · 2010-09-01 12:05 · Score: 1

And my point is that businesses always operate in their own interests, and businesses always have an interest in keeping their customers happy.

It is fashionable on /. to believe that big business and MS in particular have sinister ulterior motives that involve their doing something that will cost them sales, but I simply don't buy it.

I'm not saying MS has never done anything wrong, or that they don't wish open source never came along, but your comment about alienating customers is crucial - they are doing this because their customers demand it, and they fear they will lose money if they don't.

I don't feel a need for an explanation more complicated/sinister than that.

Kinda makes one wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-01 15:58 · Score: 0

...what is so different about the USA and Europe compared to the BRICs that makes anti-OSS FUD a more effective marketing strategy? I doubt that, volume-wise at least, initial adoption of OSS is higher in the BRIC countries than here.

Re:Wrong by causality · 2010-09-02 02:16 · Score: 1

Many people see no virtue beyond expedience. Argue with them for a lifetime and they'll never understand your point.

Agreed, though I would add something: that is only true because such people are not capable of imagining a world where virtue is the norm. Otherwise they'd work towards it and advocate for it knowing that they could never change the world on their own or anything like that, but satisfied that they as an individual are at least not part of the problem and appreciative that others must make the same decision.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein

Re:Wrong by shadowofwind · 2010-09-02 03:06 · Score: 1

Many people see no virtue beyond expedience. Argue with them for a lifetime and they'll never understand your point.

Agreed, though I would add something: that is only true because such people are not capable of imagining a world where virtue is the norm. Otherwise they'd work towards it and advocate for it knowing that they could never change the world on their own or anything like that, but satisfied that they as an individual are at least not part of the problem and appreciative that others must make the same decision.

I've met some people that do seem to be able imagine a world where virtue is the norm, and yet they still don't choose it. Maybe its because they intellectually understand what virtuous behavior would be and what the implications would be, but they are in some motivational sense unable to feel it. When the opportunity comes to betray for advantage, they can not resist.

I can't say I totally understand this, but I do experience something like it. I'm certain that its possible for a world to be vastly better than ours, and I know something of what it feels like. But another more vicious part of my mind still desires things that I'm pretty sure are inconsistent with that vision. And no amount of arguing with it seems to change its nature. Seeing how limited I am in my ability to change myself, I really don't know what other people are capable of.

The juxtaposition of my own ugliness with my awareness of beauty causes a kind of destructive psychological stress, both internally and in relation to other people. It appears that most people try to deal with the stress by denying the possibility of virtue, and also by denying their own imperfection.

For you to be satisfied 'not being a part of the problem' seems to me to imply some sort of awareness of or faith in beauty as a transcendent reality, unaltered by our current condition. Otherwise, when you see that your efforts for improvement are thwarted at your expense by others' dishonesty, you'd stop being a chump.

Thought the US Was behind... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-02 04:12 · Score: 0

I don't know about the whole BRIC, but I've been practicing computer science for 13 years in India and haven't seen a single person use Linux as a desktop OS. I made a career change after getting the obligatory certs a few years ago and I've seen more small businesses and home users actively using Linux on the desktop in the past two years than I've seen in the other 5. I was under the impression that the USA was one of the last bastions of MS operating systems...I mean we may still be but the truth is that Linux as a desktop alternative is quietly, and without a lot of overt marketing, starting to appear on more and more computers. I suppose stealing is much easier than learning, but then again, I'll not make that judgment.

Re:Wrong by causality · 2010-09-02 16:55 · Score: 1

I've met some people that do seem to be able imagine a world where virtue is the norm, and yet they still don't choose it. Maybe its because they intellectually understand what virtuous behavior would be and what the implications would be, but they are in some motivational sense unable to feel it. When the opportunity comes to betray for advantage, they can not resist.

That's because they give lip service to virtue but are not willing to apply it when it really counts.

I can't say I totally understand this, but I do experience something like it. I'm certain that its possible for a world to be vastly better than ours, and I know something of what it feels like. But another more vicious part of my mind still desires things that I'm pretty sure are inconsistent with that vision. And no amount of arguing with it seems to change its nature. Seeing how limited I am in my ability to change myself, I really don't know what other people are capable of.

The level of honesty you show here is the real value of this kind of conversation. For that I am grateful. This means that when you claim to know something of what virtue feels like, I know you are telling me the truth.

The principle here is that without temptation, there is no claim to virtue. The way to change yourself is to experience the pain of realizing how powerless and limited you truly are. No ego ever wants to do this for any purpose, so you can be assured this is something beyond ego or your nominal sense of "yourself". It taps into something greater than that, the idea that no man is an island, the interconnectedness of all things.

It's not a matter of arguing with it. If it worked that way, we'd have constructed by now a logical argument against the evils of the world and created Paradise. Human civilization has been around long enough that we've had more than enough time. Instead, we keep repeating the same mistakes.

Like I said, no man is an island. You're limited quite a bit, but only if your own personal resources are the only ones available to you. You say that you don't know what other people are capable of. Other people also don' t know what you are capable of. This may mean you have something in common with other people.

The juxtaposition of my own ugliness with my awareness of beauty causes a kind of destructive psychological stress, both internally and in relation to other people. It appears that most people try to deal with the stress by denying the possibility of virtue, and also by denying their own imperfection.

If that psychological stress is destructive, then to whom? To your thought-idea of who you are and what your goals in life are about? To the notion that you are happy if you get what you want and miserable if you don't?

It's not about perfection and imperfection. It's about the fact that you are a be-coming "evolving" type of being. You are moving in a direction. Unless you were frozen in Carbonite like Han Solo then you can't sit still. You are either improving and becoming more so or you are decaying and becoming less so.

Thus, it's not about experiencing absolute perfection right now. Likewise, you have your flaws but you are not experiencing absolute imperfection right now, for some things you do are successful. It's about the direction towards which you are heading. It's not about attaining total perfection. It's about moving towards it even when completely confident you may never firmly reach it. It's not the destination that counts; it is the journey.

For you to be satisfied 'not being a part of the problem' seems to me to imply some sort of awareness of or faith in beauty as a transcendent reality, unaltered by our current condition.

Absolutely. I either provide an undeniable example of that beauty, right here and right now, in front of your face, on Earth and not in some specu

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein

Re:Wrong by shadowofwind · 2010-09-03 01:22 · Score: 1

The juxtaposition of my own ugliness with my awareness of beauty causes a kind of destructive psychological stress, both internally and in relation to other people. It appears that most people try to deal with the stress by denying the possibility of virtue, and also by denying their own imperfection.

If that psychological stress is destructive, then to whom? To your thought-idea of who you are and what your goals in life are about? To the notion that you are happy if you get what you want and miserable if you don't?

Its destructive to the actualization of my vision of beauty.

I've known several people who care deeply about virtue, or who believe they do. Decades later, all of them in significant ways seem to be less virtuous than average people, and not as measured by the values of 'the world', but by their own ideals. How does this happen? They seem unable to consider the possibility that their troubles are clues to limitations of their vision. They interpret their troubles as things that matter only to 'the ego', or sometimes as symptoms of pre-existing shortcomings. But to their vision of progress they cling like drowning men clinging to a concrete block. They believe themselves wise, far beyond ordinary men, but can not learn except along limited and rapidly constricting paths.

I think that when a twisted mind is inspired by beauty, its response is unavoidably twisted, and it skewers itself with it. Its not just 'the ego' that gets skewered, with an angel of perfection revealing itself from beyond the ashes. Its all ego, and the angel is a monster, not just to the ego but in an absolute sense.

Too much medicine is poison. If you could somehow take a person and force them to see perfection before they are ready, and in contrast their own imperfection, you would destroy them. And its the same if you do it to yourself.

Re:Wrong by causality · 2010-09-03 11:17 · Score: 1

This is one of those things. It's not so terribly complex that it defies any attempt to figure it out. Rather, it's so utterly simple that we constantly overlook it.

I view having a particular idea or vision of beauty as a mistake. It naturally makes one want to draw a distinction between that vision and the reality that is immediately apprehendable.

I view real beauty as something that is discovered, not envisioned. Once discovered and seen clearly, it can be found everywhere. It's a subtle underlying essence of this very mysterious universe in which we find ourselves.

That's the difference between a product of ego and its imagination versus a witnessing of something far beyond oneself. It's no wonder that people who don't understand this have a serious risk of becoming entangled.

--
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein

Re:Wrong by shadowofwind · 2010-09-04 15:07 · Score: 1

it's so utterly simple that we constantly overlook it.

Yes, hard to articulate and be understood sometimes though.

I view real beauty as something that is discovered, not envisioned.

When I said 'vision of beauty', I was following your earlier language of 'imagine a world where virtue is the norm'. Also I meant to indicate that I've often been most aware of beauty in contexts that might be said to be abstract, potential, or internal. To say its discovered and then found everywhere is a nice thought though, and it makes some sense to me.

Everyone's experience of this seems to me to be somewhat unique. Personally I started off by being more aware of beauty's apparent absence. Certain apparently unavoidable facts of life, for instance that many animals must kill other animals to survive, seemed to me to be not as they should be, somehow not as I expected. Then by grace the place where "I" stand when I think about things shifted, turned upside down in a way, and the meaning and apparent causes of things the world changed. I also dug for the source of the perception that some things are "not beautiful", and found there is always an awareness of some flavor of indestructible beauty at the root of that.

I've been inspired by other people's best thoughts. Practically everybody has some unique trait or awareness that's beautiful, and when I am able to recognize that my own awareness expands to include what I recognized, and generally stays that way. This has been a primary value to me of honest conversations with people.

I'm aware that there is considerably more beauty in my surroundings than I am conscious of. Being more aware of it requires a kind of emotional openness that I haven't learned how to do while maintaining my own emotional integrity. Attempting to explain what I mean will sound like gibberish to most people, and I have no idea if it will make any sense to you. I feel something crudely analogous to an atmosphere, or spring of water in relation to the minds of other people. If I'm open to it, it flows into my mind, and aspects of my mind which are usually dried up or 'off' come to life, and I'm aware of more. But other people have different motives than I do, and different desires and psychological conditions, and these generally don't interact well with my mine. To push the water metaphor further, I'm a deep, clear, demon infested well with a broken bucket. So is everyone, but it seems that most people have more going on at the surface, and may be far less aware of what's underneath. Given our imperfections, I think there's a natural tradeoff which tends to prevent people from getting into deeper trouble than they would otherwise.

One thing that has been particularly valuable to me personally is learning not to make firmer judgments than currently available information warrants. Many if not all things are partially imprecise, or undefined. Trying to make them more concrete than they naturally are in the present moment is an act of mental intemperance which ties one's feeling and reason in a tiny knot. I feel my personality to be a mess of a huge number of such knots. I'm not saying that its useful to for one's thinking to be all vague: we also need to be precise or definite. I mean that often there's a tiny half-lie when we say what something definitely is, and the accumulation of those half-lies contorts our minds and blinds us to all sort of things. To the extent that we relax this, and control it better, in stages things which we were blind to become apparent. This is another way to say what I tried to say earlier. When a person perceives something beautiful, or gains an insight, or builds a virtue, there is a temptation, often inescapable, to emotionally over-react and create a particularly big knot. Then we tend to form knots about those knots, and so on, like the sorcerer's apprentice chopping up broomsticks. But we can only proceed from where we are presently, and from here its just a part of the process.

Slashdot Mirror

Why Microsoft Is Being Nicer To Open Source

231 comments