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.

[HermMunster]

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.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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

[jd2112]

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.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Hyper-V kernel extensions

The Eternal Spin Zone: Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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: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]

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.

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.

Re:Wrong

[yyxx]

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

GUIs GUIs GUIs

[Tablizer]

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.

Re:Wrong

[poetmatt]

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.