Why Microsoft Is Being Nicer To Open Source

itwbennett writes "Is open source's growth in emerging markets what is driving Microsoft to say 'we love open source' with an attempt at a straight face? 'The emerging markets (like the BRIC nations) are a huge potential market for Microsoft,' says Brian Proffitt. 'And I believe Redmond is wisely not taking the FUD route on open source software in those markets. Why? Because open source already has some strong roots in the BRIC nations (heck, in Brazil, open source is the whole darn tree), and any attack on open source would be seen as a foreign company attacking local software projects. If Microsoft attacked open source publicly in this environment, a lot of potential customers and developers in those countries could react in a protectionist manner and start giving Microsoft the stink-eye.'"

Comments

MS OSS Strategy is UpSide Down.

[martiniturbide]

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.

[cyclomedia]

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.

Yes, something is up

[transporter_ii]

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

Re:Yes, something is up

[transporter_ii]

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

Embrace, extend, eliminate

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Microsoft's old M.O.

Nothing to see here folks ...

When the cheese moves you follow it

[the Gray Mouser]

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

[wierd_w]

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

[Decker-Mage]

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.

Re:When the cheese moves you follow it

[CyDharttha]

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:Wrong

[exomondo]

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

not true

[8086]

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

[HermMunster]

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.

Re:not true

[the_womble]

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

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

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.

Re:Wrong

[HermMunster]

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.

Re:Wrong

[causality]

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.

Re:Wrong

[causality]

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.

Oracle makes microsoft look nice by comparison

[voss]

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:MSFT vs "Open Source"

[adamofgreyskull]

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.