Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft's Chief Exec For Latin America Says 'Open' Means 'Incompetent'

An anonymous reader writes "The President of Microsoft Latin America, in criticizing the Brazilian government for its support of open source software, claimed that declaring something open is how you 'mask incompetence.' That seems especially funny coming from Microsoft, who has used 'closed' to mask incompetence for years. I thought 'open' meant that people could find and fix (or ignore) incompetence, whereas closed meant you were stuck with the incompetence."

35 of 340 comments (clear)

  1. not long for his job by yagu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even microsoft will distance themselves from this thesis. They've come too far "embracing" open. My guess, this guy gets cut loose, and if microsoft can make a PR coup of it at the same time, they will.

    1. Re:not long for his job by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know if it'll lose him his job but yeah, this isn't even within the realms of MS's PR strategy, this is just some exec talking like an idiot.

    2. Re:not long for his job by click2005 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Open does mean incompetent. Microsoft are trying to hide that by keeping it closed.
      I'd rather trust the people saying 'its not perfect so help us make it better'
      than the ones saying 'we make perfect software' and being proved wrong time after time.

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    3. Re:not long for his job by homey+of+my+owney · · Score: 3, Informative

      I am NOT by any means defending this guy, but I think he was probably referring to the somewhat obtuse way that open source projects are documented which can give the appearance of incompetence, which has been a long time complaint of mine.

      Everybody hates documentation if you're a coder, but having an attitude of RTFC helps no one if you are looking to compare an OS project to a paid alternative.

      I'm not suggesting that this is for all projects, but it is far to common and must change to really enter the mainstream.

    4. Re:not long for his job by clarkkent09 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you look through all the open source projects, say on sourceforge (all 250,000 of them), a few are great, many are average and by far the largest part are abandoned, half-finished and/or complete garbage. It doesn't mean that open source means incompetent but it doesn't automatically mean competent either, you have to look at the specific project. Probably on the whole commercial products are better if only because people have money invested in them and they are less likely to get bored with them half way through.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    5. Re:not long for his job by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This *IS* Microsoft with a thesis. It's also a sales guy that's losing ground, just as has happened in many countries of the world. He's losing his grip. There's little way for Microsoft to make a PR coup out of this, which makes me wonder why you'd even bring this up.

      IMHO, Microsoft's embrace of 'open' is similar to the other embraces that they've made, called The Black Widow Effect. It goes back to things like SQL Server, OS/2-LAN Manager, and other 'partnered' programs that turned into outrageous divorces with big name organizations.

      Microsoft serves Microsoft. Make no mistake about this. If it's not invented here, then it needs to be embraced and squeezed to death.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    6. Re:not long for his job by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably on the whole commercial products are better if only because people have money invested in them and they are less likely to get bored with them half way through.

      I suspect most people developing commercial products get bored with them by the time they're half-way through, but they have to be shipped in order to keep beer and pizza on the table.

    7. Re:not long for his job by lewiscr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably on the whole commercial products are better if only because people have money invested in them and they are less likely to get bored with them half way through.

      No, not really. We can't browse a large archive of commercial projects that never shipped, so we can't really compare. I am willing to bet that there are more abandoned open source projects, but I don't think it's as skewed as you suggest.

    8. Re:not long for his job by dch24 · · Score: 4, Informative
    9. Re:not long for his job by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Probably on the whole commercial products are better if only because people have money invested in them and they are less likely to get bored with them half way through."

      You mean like how Outlook 2003 had half-assed, crippled IMAP support that languished for 4 years until Outlook 2007 came out? Which still left out a few important details that were kinda addressed in Outlook 2010? And you got to pay $$$ for each incremental improvement?

      I almost like Outlook 2010 but it took them 7 freakin' years to get IMAP right enough not to suck. Actually, it took MORE than 7 years. I'm pretty sure it was part of LookOut 97.

      The whole idea that money must be involved to create a quality product really grinds my gears. Back when OpenOffice hit 2.0, one of our mucky-mucks took up the challenge to do all of his office tasks with OO. Several months later, he declared that he hadn't touched an Office product once, the learning curve wasn't bad, and he was able to do everything he needed with OO and several things that Office couldn't do. So we're sticking with M$ Office because it must be better because we pay for it. Sigh. Before I could even open my mouth, he came right out and said that there was no rational basis for the decision. Free software just doesn't feel right.

      That attitude is starting to change but it's sooooo sssssllllloooooowwwww in an industry that moves so fast.

    10. Re:not long for his job by twidarkling · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except you can't say that each start-up represents a project. Some may represent more than one. Back during the .com boom, many represented none. And what about projects that were transferred to a new company as part of the selling off of a start-up's assets?

      So, while yes, one could assume a similar failure rate of start-up companies in software as other areas, that failure rate has absolutely fuck-all to do with the current conversation of comparing open source project abandonment with commercial.

      Personally, I think there's more open-source abandoned projects by a huge amount, but mostly for one reason: amateur coder starts a project on own time, realizes it goes beyond current skills, abandons, starts new project later. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, either. It's a great way to learn and push yourself.

      My only problem with projects like that is that often it's never clearly established that it's abandoned, or who is in current stewardship, or anything like that, and so these half-done projects remain around, lowering the average quality of OSS, and making it incredibly hard to find something current and/or decent. That's at least one decent thing about commercial software: it's easy to tell who is in charge of a piece of software, and if they're bothering to maintain it any more.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    11. Re:not long for his job by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      by far the largest part are abandoned, half-finished and/or complete garbage.

      I have a project on Sourceforge that I haven't updated since March, and the last update before that was in November. It's not abandoned. To the contrary, I use it in an hourly cron job on a production server. The thing is, it works. Unless a user writes to me with a patch or request, I doubt I'll ever have a reason to update it. It does exactly what it's supposed to do, I haven't experienced a bug in several years, and it compiles without warning on every 32- and 64- bit Linux, FreeBSD, and OS X system I have to test it on.

      A lot of projects probably have been abandoned, but it's kind of hard to tell. A lack of updates to a project doesn't have to mean to no one cares. It might also mean that it's, well, finished.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    12. Re:not long for his job by kimvette · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On that note, let's follow the trail

      open source = incompetence
      BSD Sockets = open source
      Winsock (windows sockets - the TCP/IP stack Microsoft first used in Windows) = BSD Sockets, taken directly from BSD code (Microsoft loves the BSD license)
      Winsock = incompetence, ergo Windows networking = the product of incompetence!!

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    13. Re:not long for his job by IICV · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also, there's no conveniently damning repository of abandoned closed source projects - after all, it's not like there's some major website dedicated to hosting them (and how would that even work? "Give us your code but we promise we won't look at it?").

      You just plain can't use Sourceforge or freshmeat as an indicator of how often open source projects are abandoned vs closed - using just that data, we have exactly zero information on how often closed source projects are abandoned. I bet you anything that closed source projects get abandoned more often, if only because they're more likely to be started by some PHB than by a dev with fire in his belly.

  2. Is it opposite day in Latin America? by node+3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The way you mask something is to put it out in the open?

    /cue Inigo Montoya...

  3. Incompetent? by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Open means Incompetent?

    That can't be right. I thought it meant not quite finished and don't expect documentation.

    Put the flame throwers down... it's a joke.

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    1. Re:Incompetent? by LifesABeach · · Score: 4, Funny

      It could be a translation error, in Brazil, Portuguese is the main language. Maybe he meant to say "In Compliance", which is something of a challenge for the arrogant among us.

  4. Maybe he's on to something by srh2o · · Score: 5, Funny
  5. Well... by brit74 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, I know I won't be beloved by slashdot commenters for this. It's true that "open" doesn't necessarily mean incompetent (e.g. Firefox is still better than IE), but there's plenty of cases where open-source is the strategy used when a company doesn't have the money to property develop a product. I sometimes use open-source software not because it's better, but because it's cheaper. I'm under no illusion that it's often not as good as paid, closed software that does the same thing.

  6. The key word is "compete" by DontLickJesus · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Not all open source software is written by businesses. Not all open source software is written for profit. As most governments realize they need to tighten their belts, it's important to remember that the the basic idea of public service is a) to support your community and b) to efficiently manage public resources, perhaps this government realizes it is not their job to support companies.
    • Open source can be reviewed for problems, both from technical issues and human (corrupt) issues.
    • When free open source software used by governments, they are accepting as real the public service so many developers have provided
    • When open source software fails to deliver features that users truly need, companies who do stand out and shine for their innovation
    • Open source software is a form of public intellectual property that not only provides a service, but a sort of baseline for what is truly worth paying for.

    The basic truth is when companies are forced to provide superior products instead of costly attempts, citizens win. Neither the government nor it's people are here to compete with you, that's a business game.

    --
    Where genius and insanity become confused true wisdom is found
  7. Re:Lost in by Haffner · · Score: 4, Informative

    As someone who speaks competent spanish, "Quando você não pode competir, você se declara aberto. Isso mascara a incompetência". Translates to "When you can't compete, you declare it open. It masks the incompetence."

    --
    "Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
  8. Re:Fedora 13 by similar_name · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah because Windows always works right out of the box.

    Let's see, did a factory restore of a Dell with Windows XP and it wouldn't boot with the Nvidia card that came with it. Had to take the card out, do the restore, then install the latest drivers and then put the card back in. Considering that everything is made and tested for Windows that's just sad.

    Recently did the same with an Acer. Acer drivers wouldn't detect the broadcom wireless, because it has to be initialized by the driver, but the drivers won't install if they don't detect. Had to install the drivers from Dell's site.

    So no, the guy doesn't have a point and neither does your anecdote.

    You could make the argument that many hardware companies do not support OSS but you can hardly make the argument that OSS is incompetent.

    Now if you consider that almost all hardware is specifically designed for proprietary software and it still doesn't work all of the time, one could make the argument that proprietary software is incompetent.

  9. Open Can Be Last Refuge Of The Incompetant by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Open doesn't necessarily mean incompetent and closed doesn't necessarily mean competant. But "open" can sometimes be a last refuge for the incompetent. As if no one who has ever banged into a serious, irrefutable FLOSS usability problem has been told "quit whining, learn how to code and fix it yourself. It's open!"

    You remember all those PDA's that the Taiwanese/Japanese couldn't sell because they sucked so much and their last ditch strategy was to bill them as open source PDA's and create FLOSS projects around them (e.g. Zaurus)? Open sourcing of Symbian after it got its ass handed to it by iOS? That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about.

    1. Re:Open Can Be Last Refuge Of The Incompetant by Idiomatick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I read it like this. If you are building something. And run into problems and can't make it work properly or can't ship something good for w/e reason. Perhaps you are having lots of bugs you can't work out. That is incompetent.

      But releasing the shitty software as OSS could potentially solve those problems for you. Bug hunting is easier for sure. You don't have to deal with minor patches really. And if the software is valuable the group can figure it out for you

  10. Re:Lost in by apow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It needs to be put in context. What he meant was: when a company cannot compete (inferior product), they scream at the top of their lungs BUT IT'S OPEN! in order to masquerade their incompetence. He may have a point.

    However, and I'd be preaching to the choir, we all know that it doesn't also mean that when a company has an "open" product, it sucks by default. He may have tried to pull this false correlation.
    He also said in an earlier paragraph that the Brazillian government is wasting time with open-source, since inovation is in the private industry.

    Stupid probably doesn't even know they ripped their sockets implementation from BSD...

    --

    Rio de Janeiro's dwellers are stupid. No, really.
  11. Excellent news by aBaldrich · · Score: 4, Insightful

    “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
    This was exactly what latin american free software needed. FSF - LA successfully "converted" many Brazilian trade unions to Free Software. Uruguay adopted Linux for OLPC, Argentina was going to adopt Linux but then Ballmer paid a visit to the president and now they use dual-boot. Ubuntu is already more popular than Mac, and Microsoft is the paradigm of "colonialist foreign corporation" that all the leftists despise. (See this article (spanish) from Venezuela: "Free Software vs. Privative Software: freedom vs. slavery")
    I recall the last time Stallman visited Argentina, he spent more time with politicians than with programmers. I really hope this is our chance. OLPC is like Gramsci: if the kids learn linux there's no way to bring them to Windows once they grow up.

    --
    In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
    1. Re:Excellent news by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 3, Funny

      I recall the last time Stallman visited Argentina, he spent more time with politicians than with programmers.

      Wow. We've had some bad diplomats in the past but... wow. The cake has been taken.

  12. Re:That's the pot calling the kettle black by sco08y · · Score: 4, Funny

    That the pot calling the kettle black if ever I've heard it!

    Thank God. I don't know what we would have done if you hadn't shown up, Captain Obvious.

  13. EULA by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If closed-source is so competent, why does every EULA I ever read disclaim any warranty?

  14. Suckwear by TiggertheMad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    by far the largest part are abandoned, half-finished and/or complete garbage.

    This seems like a good sign to me. If the project isn't interesting or important enough to warrant being finished, abandon it. You can't really do this if you are writing a commercial product. Usually it just ends up sucking, and clogging up the retail channel with cruddy software. Better to die a deserved early death, then waste people's time and money.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Suckwear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But I can't count how many times I have yanked the code for an "abandoned" project to see how they did something, or rolled an entire module into something else. Just because the shiny distributable package is no longer useful doesn't mean the project "alive and kicking" somewhere, in some other form.

      THAT is one of the key differences for me, open source can be abandoned but it probably won't ever die, closed can easily slip into the night.

  15. Anyone remember? by __aagmrb7289 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Anyone remember the following slashdot article?

    http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/09/01/0019238/Why-Microsoft-Is-Being-Nicer-To-Open-Source

    Why do we take this stuff seriously? It's not a strategy or plan until it's coherent and on purpose. That's why I disliked the above story in the first place. It would behoove a great many of us (including myself, in many circumstances) to remember to look twice before jumping in with our opinion on this kind of thing.

  16. Re:Lost in by RemyBR · · Score: 4, Informative

    Native brasilian here. Your translation is correct. Unfortunately this doesn't change the fact that what he said is obviously bullshit.

  17. Re:Lost in by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It sounds like he is being taken out of context.

    For example, I've noticed a common theme lately for old, entrenched products. If they start to fall behind and their market share starts to dip too low, they open source their code. This generates lots of good press and a whole new army of free worker bees improving your product. The down side, of course, is you lose complete control, but if you've been screwing it up this whole time that might not be a bad thing.

    Probably the biggest example of this is Mozilla, which came as a direct result of the disaster that was Netscape's "upgrade" (they took a fantastic product and killed it with incompetence).

    So he's not necessarily saying open source = incompetent, what he is saying is that often the reason companies open source their code is as a way to mask their own incompetence (i.e. not the open source community's incompetence).

    It seems plausible.

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  18. bump the version up by DrYak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    if the software is as stable as you mention (and I trust you, if you've been flawlessly using it inproduction),
    maybe you should consider bumping the version up to 1.00 and post last update explaining what you said above.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]