Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Microsoft has ALREADY attacked open source. Many times. I could link to a dozen articles, at least, discussing just this here at Slashdot. If you are going to write an editorial, know the subject, and know your history. Thanks for playing!
I made your mom's eye stink...LIKE MY JISM
I saw MS OSS strategy in a local event. They are not serious with Open Source. They want OSS software to take money away from their partners, but not them.
Check my article.
http://martin.iturbide.com/?page_id=114
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
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
This is Microsoft's old M.O.
Nothing to see here folks ...
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.
when the summary said "stink-eye", i thought it said "brown-eye".
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).
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"
What's this "'could react in a protectionist manner and start giving Microsoft the stink-eye'" shit? Isn't that the normal reaction?
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?
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.
You sleep with her too? Incest is best, really.
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)))
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.
It is necessary to get behind someone/thing in order to stab them in the back.
Help feed homeless animals - Free! www.theanimalrescuesite.com
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.
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]
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.
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
imo, the reality is that one of Microsoft's major contributions to business is the questionable exploitation of the far fringes of business legalities.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Because they are getting trashed in the marketplace.
nned to join the mAistake of electing
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.
Microsoft's attitude to OSS is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until they can find a rock.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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.
... but they still won't give it a reach-around.
Have gnu, will travel.
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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, 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.
Just as open source is rightly WYODD (Write Your Own Damn Drivers)
These launch ventures are BYODF (Buy Your Own Damn Fuel)
Microsoft's plan: ....... and finally
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
4)Patent these programs and sue the companies making open source software
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 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.
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...
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
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.
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?
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.
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?
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
ya that was a nice thing to do. more fud cause they lost
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....
*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.
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.
Like this sign http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/3/19/
vi +
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.
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.
...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.
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.