Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux Foundation Comments On Microsoft's Increasing Love of Linux

Posted by samzenpus on from the strange-bedfellows dept.

LibbyMC writes Executive Director Jim Zemlin writes, "We do not agree with everything Microsoft does and certainly many open source projects compete directly with Microsoft products. However, the new Microsoft we are seeing today is certainly a different organization when it comes to open source. The company's participation in these efforts underscores the fact that nothing has changed more in the last couple of decades than how software is fundamentally built."

26 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. Step one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh look, MS is embracing open source. Isn't that wonderful?

    1. Re:Step one. by davydagger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      yes actually. What I'd like from MS is an apology and a statement that they will take their company in a new dirrection. After all IBM has supported FOSS for decades, and before MS, they used to be more evil than they were. So far, they've been good corporate citizens. If Big Blue can do it, MS can as well. I am not going forget all of history in one instant, but over time I am willing to see how this shakes out, and if microsoft continues this postive development my opinions of them will change favorably. This is not a whole lot, but a start. Today, my opinion of microsoft has changed a little bit to the favorable. A little bit. Not a whole lot, but a little bit. If microsoft wants my opinion(and everyone elses) to change for the better, they can continue what they've done today in regards to Freedom and Openness.

    2. Re:Step one. by GreatDrok · · Score: 2

      "Oh look, MS is embracing open source. Isn't that wonderful?"

      Maybe open source is embracing MS? That would put the cat amongst the pigeons to say the least. Just who gets extinguished in that scenario?

      --
      "I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
    3. Re:Step one. by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 2

      "Don't let yesterday use up too much of today." - Will Rogers

    4. Re:Step one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am not going forget all of history in one instant,

      I'm not worried about history. It's their present actions I want to see corrected.

      1. Stop blocking open file/document formats and start actively working towards interoperability. I want to be able to use any tool of my choice on my data.
      2. Stop astroturfing EVERY tech forum in existence. I want to be able to discuss Linux and other OSs/software etc without harassment from MS damage control drones.
      3. Lose the control-freak attitude towards competitors. Don't try to patent-bomb/bleed/cross-license them out of existence.
      4. Don't buy/bribe government customers to keep them locked in. We have a right to use free and open tools on documents written on taxpayer dollars.
      5. Stop manipulating hardware manufacturers. Locked/broken bootloaders, closed drivers etc are dirty ways to compete.

      There's a lot more, but the point is made. Until I see some fundamental changes to the way MS does business, I'll have to keep assuming this current cosying up to the community is cynically motivated and dangerous.

    5. Re:Step one. by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Funny

      What I'd like from MS is an apology...

      What I would like from MS is an apology and a big slurpy wet kiss on my asshole with plenty of suction. And then I still won't trust them, but at least my ass will be clean.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    6. Re:Step one. by Uecker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, the standard body should do its job and produce good standards. Whether Microsoft implements it or not is not their problem. A good standard which Microsoft does not use is much better than a mess which nobody can implement correctly.

    7. Re:Step one. by nukenerd · · Score: 2

      Nobody is saying what microsoft did is ok, but the incompetence of the ISO has allowed this to happen

      Perhaps incompetence; it was the fact that no-one had ever forseen that anyone would play the dirty trick that Microsoft did. I hope they have fixed it.

      I am interested in yacht racing under rating rules. The yachts can be of different design, but there are rules to make the yachts competative with each other. Like you can have a certain sail area but of any aspect ratio. But every now and then someone turns up with a yacht of a design that exploits a loophole in the rule, and everyone (often even the owner) agrees it is cheating and the rules are soon amended to block the loophole. It is similar in F1 car racing.

      That is what Microsoft did - found a loophole - but the result has been far more catastrophic than a wrong yacht winning a race.

  2. Microsoft's 1990's business plan. by Reeses · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Step 1: Embrace.
    Step 2: Extend.
    Step 3: Extinguish.

    They see this as step 1.

    --
    Reeses
    1. Re:Microsoft's 1990's business plan. by swillden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Step 1: Embrace.
      Step 2: Extend.
      Step 3: Extinguish.

      They see this as step 1.

      You know, I really don't think so. I think Microsoft has gotten knocked down hard and learned a little humility. They now have to compete on merit, rather than just leverage their IBM-gifted monopoly to squash any competition. It's even possible that the lesson will sink deeply enough into the corporate culture to effect a permanent change (plus, it's unlikely they'll achieve another world-dominating position to leverage).

      But even if you're right, I don't think it matters because their monopoly is eroding fast and without that leverage they can't execute step 3.

      (Just to head off some inevitable replies to that last comment, when I say their monopoly is eroding it's not so much that Windows is being replaced on the desktop -- though it is, some, and I think the trend will accelerate -- but that the desktop is becoming much less important.)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:Microsoft's 1990's business plan. by rcht148 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would like to believe you. I really really want to but what's the guarantee?
      The adoption of Win 8.x is still quite low. After Steam announced SteamOS, we have seen few companies port their gaming engine to Linux and some hardware manufacturers have started giving some standing to Linux (not saying equal to Windows). Microsoft is at a low right now and 'embracing' seems like a business need more than just a change of heart. How do you know that it won't 'extinguish' cross platform support when it defeats the competitive options.
      This is like we had a bad tyrant and we suffered tremendously under this tyrant and it took a DoJ anti-trust lawsuit and a very long amount of time to see meaningful competition in this space again. Now the tyrant is back saying pretty please.
      My reply is simple: Fool me once...

    3. Re:Microsoft's 1990's business plan. by exomondo · · Score: 2

      So obviously you've heard of this Embrace, Extend, Extinguish from the 1990's memo about the proprietary Sun technology but how exactly are you thinking that applies here? Are you saying they are going to somehow embrace, extend and then extinguish open source? If so how exactly do you suppose they could do such a thing?

    4. Re:Microsoft's 1990's business plan. by Shados · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except they're not embracing anything. They're opening some of their most popular stuff. Do you think they're going to try and kill Github by...putting stuff on github?

    5. Re:Microsoft's 1990's business plan. by swillden · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I would like to believe you. I really really want to but what's the guarantee?

      There are no guarantees.

      How do you know that it won't 'extinguish' cross platform support when it defeats the competitive options.

      Because Microsoft has failed in the mobile space, and mobile computing is becoming the dominant form of individual computing. Desktops and laptops aren't going away, but they're being relegated to smaller niches, and even in those niches people increasingly expect to be able to work cross-device. I don't expect my tablet or phone to be as convenient for, say, editing a spreadsheet or writing code, as my laptop or desktop, but I increasingly demand that I be able to work on the same stuff on all sorts of devices and to be able to move seamlessly between them.

      This inherently means that big chunks of any solution must be cross-platform, because there is no single platform that runs on all devices. Microsoft would like to change this by unifying desktop and mobile Windows, but to be successful at that they'd have to get a dominant position in mobile computing, and they've failed at that. The webification of everything is also making it increasingly impossible to bind users to one operating system.

      So, Microsoft is simply not going to have the ability to extinguish cross-platformness, because to do that they'd have to own all the platforms, and they don't, and won't.

      This is like we had a bad tyrant and we suffered tremendously under this tyrant and it took a DoJ anti-trust lawsuit and a very long amount of time to see meaningful competition in this space again.

      The DoJ suit had nothing to do with it. Microsoft was never meaningfully limited by that suit.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    6. Re:Microsoft's 1990's business plan. by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      WE didnt think they would fund SCO either.... but they did and thats why we are VERY cautious on this matter.

      --
      Good-bye
    7. Re:Microsoft's 1990's business plan. by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Interesting

      None of the things you are ranting about are relevant. The issue is whether or not Microsoft is the same company. Is it the same corporate culture?

      Chances are that it is.

      The fact that the rest of the world has changed really isn't relevant. It's not the rest of the world we're talking about. The world may have changed and it seems at first glance that it's the same old Microsoft being a leech off of Android with it's patent trolling.

      Forget about childish insults directed at Unix users. Microsoft has continually botched it's attempts to adapt to the new reality. That's why it makes more money in the mobile space off of patent trolling than it does it's own product.

      Even this "gift" is a manifestation of how they couldn't cope with Java.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    8. Re:Microsoft's 1990's business plan. by guruevi · · Score: 2

      I see plenty of forks of open source software even small fish. Look at Linux, X, KDE, Gnome, Ubuntu. Heck, look at a random Github project and someone has forked it.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    9. Re:Microsoft's 1990's business plan. by B2382F29 · · Score: 4, Informative

      All, except the nice bits...

      http://arstechnica.com/gadgets...

      --
      Move Sig. For great justice.
    10. Re:Microsoft's 1990's business plan. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      As he said, you need to peek out of the basement of your moms once a decade

      When the best you can do is personal attacks, we know you are a liar.

      Please explain the theoretical way Microsoft could EEE in any of what they are doing now.

      The same as always? They get people hooked on their platform and then extort them. They will hook them with fake-ass open source, then people will become dependent on their tools, again. It won't be impossible to transition away, but it will still cost money, so many won't do it.

      Oh, and if you don't believe me, download VS 2015 preview and try.

      VS has always been one of MS' better products. However, that has no bearing whatsoever on what we are talking about here. Stay on topic, or stay quiet.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Commercialism... by MindPrison · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...when someone smells money in the idealistic work of others, it's time to beware!

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
  4. Progress by LessThanObvious · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The days when it seemed that Microsoft could have the whole pie all to itself is long gone. I'll call the steps they are taking progress. Office 365 availability on Linux and .Net opening up to Linux as open source sets a pretty good stage for real openness of choice. I hear from regular people all the time how much they like the Surface for work or how they wish they bough a Surface rather than iPad for work. They have stopped trying to hold back change, because that outright failed. They now at least seem to be embracing change. Now the real test is if they can affect change and actually lead at least with the piece of the pie where they can still fit. Windows Mobile may wander the desert without followers for many years, but if Windows 10 is well received they may actually survive the death of the desktop.

    1. Re:Progress by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yet prior to 2007, Microsoft was a dominant player in the mobile market - Windows Mobile was everyone - on phones, PDAs, and even PDA-phones. So was Palm. And Nokia. HTC was making Windows Mobile devices (as an ODM).

      Microsoft was never a dominant player in the mobile market. They were so pathetic that a little company which got its start repackaging GEOS for a market failure of a PC-based handheld designed by Casio, built by GRiD and marketed by Tandy was able to completely embarrass them and dominate the space with a handheld powered by a motorola CPU whose core was nearly twenty years old. I refer, of course, to Palm Computing. HTC's Windows Mobile phones were horrible pieces of shit. I had one of the later ones, a Raphael. The software was shit, the hardware was shit (HTC was too lame to add a piece of tape to retain the keyboard connector even after the community figured out the fix) and the overall experience was shit. The phones were expensive even on contract so nobody but nerds bought them.

      The only mobile market that Microsoft ever dominated was the corporate handheld market, for applications like point of sale and inventory. And that was only for a minuscule slice of time, because let's face it, WINCE is SHIT. It has had no reason to exist approximately since the release of the AMD GEODE made it feasible to run full-blown Windows on a handheld device. (Sure, there were mobile x86 processors before that, but none of them offered adequate performance and acceptable battery life. Some of the 486SLCs came close, but still couldn't really deliver the low power consumption necessary.)

      Microsoft has only ever dominated the PC and the low-end server markets, which it still controls. They do have dramatic market share in console gaming now, however, due to Sony's repeated massive failures. But few people want their phones today, they want Android or Apple because that's where the apps are. Microsoft got their shit together far too slowly in mobile, in spite of being one of the longest-term players in the game, and now the only chance they have to even be important again is for Apple or Google to fail hard. I don't think it's possible for either of them to fail that badly.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Progress by StormReaver · · Score: 2

      The days when it seemed that Microsoft could have the whole pie all to itself is long gone.

      I'm sure IBM thought something similar when Microsoft was "collaborating" on OS/2.

      Now is not the time to let your guard down. We have finally, painfully clawed our way out of the Microsoft den. Now is not the time to squander all that hard work with feel-good naivety. Microsoft is Microsoft, and that will never change. The moment its management smells a weakness, you will become dinner if you're not paying attention.

      I'm shaking my head at how quickly people forget the lessons of the past.

  5. Those that dont learn from history... by mrflash818 · · Score: 2

    ...are doomed to repeat it.

    Embrace. Extend. Extinguish.

    "Embrace, extend, and extinguish",[1] also known as "Embrace, extend, and exterminate",[2] is a phrase that the U.S. Department of Justice found[3] and was used internally by Microsoft[4] to describe its strategy for entering product categories involving widely used standards, extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences to disadvantage its competitors.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
  6. Business model of the 90's != today. by Severus+Snape · · Score: 2

    To put it bluntly, Microsoft's past is full of a lot of sleazy shit with their boot attempting to stamp all over the Linux ecosystem many times. To this day I still can't believe they threw over one hundred million dollars (at least, we only have leaked but confirmed information to go on) to SCO (a competitor!) just to hurt Linux. Balmer and Gates built a massive business on the back of their shenanigans, and kudos to them, the game is capitalism at the end of the day.

    Is it the same company today? I'm not so sure. I'm sure some of the internal company culture is still there but they have a different vision and direction. Today they announced open sourcing the whole entire .net stack with OS X and Linux support. Any suggestion of that a few years ago and the internet would ridicule you in to crying in a corner.

    We should still be wary, that's for sure. They are not the same evil beast they once were though.

  7. Pointless by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    In light of them strong-arming every manufacturer that dared to use Android with threats of supposed IP infringement (that has not and probably never will see the sterilizing judicial light of day), this 'change of heart'... isn't.

    Satty first needs to don the hairshirt and make quite a few public apologies for past AND CURRENT actions against FOSS.