Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft "thinking about" Open Source
Everyone, their mother, Uncle Henry and Aunt Maude wrote in about Microsoft considering using Open Source. While they've talked about it before, Steve Balmer, MS President, said in remarks that Microsoft is thinking about - Note:thinking about the Open Source model. But, hey, lotsa people think about lotsa things. I'm not holding my breath
Why do we (the open source community) even both discussing this issue?
Microsoft has a long history of pushing its own proprietary solutions
while ignoring or subverting cross-platform, open standards. Not-to-
mention their documented efforts to eliminate any conceivable competition
via methods that could be described, at best, as unsavory. Does anybody
seriously believe that they're about to change their ways *this* late in
the game?
Maybe once the playing-field has been leveled (if indeed ever it is) or
Microsoft establishes the same history of supporting truly open standards
as it has so far only its proprietary, lock-in solutions, there will be
some point to this kind of discussion. Until then, hints like this from
Microsoft can be regarded seriously only as so much PR spin.
"What [Linux] caused us to do was really focus and ask what is it about the Linux model that really rivets people," Ballmer said. "Initially, some people thought it was the price, but I frankly don't think that's the case. In almost every application that we talk to people about, people want a good price, but the most important thing is to get a platform that does the job and is reliable."
"[Open source] means different things to different people, but certainly the notion that there are parts of our source code that if published would help you be more effective in your job," Ballmer said.
"I don't think everybody really wants to dig through the code that puts out menus, but there are parts of the system where if you have the source code, I think people would feel that to be more effective," Ballmer said.
Ballmer hinted that one area would concern portions of the code that related to database connectivity, which many developers find "complicated and difficult to understand."
RANT SUMMARY: Don't let the sleezy hype of MSFT get to you -- do you really want to lower yourself to their level?!
Typical Manager:
The tech's will be satisfied, and there's no risk.
Besides, NT has already been proven to be faster than Linux, and to scale better.
Just because Balmer says they're interested, doesn't mean they are.
In my (very) humble opinion, Microsoft is still trying to get their corporate mindset around the idea of open source. This piece seems to indicate to me that they don't understand why Open Source is successful, what motivates people to produce Open Source software, or why it's better than Microsoft products. I'm guessing that Microsoft's current view of the Open Source movement is a lot like the blind men's view of an elephant: they see a tree, a snake, and a rope (or at least Linux, Samba, and Apache) but don't understand how it fits together or why it hurts so much when it steps on them. Open Source is a concept that even fairly forward-thinking corporate managers have had a difficult time grasping. It's only been recently (and due in good part to the successes of the Open Source Foundation) that there has been some success.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has always had difficulty understanding the idea of sharing programs. This attitude goes back a long way into their corporate history - does anyone other than me remember Bill Gates' open letter on software piracy, back in the Altair days? I'd say it's safe to say that Bill Gates and Microsoft haven't ever "gotten it" about free software or open source - even back when personal computers were mostly a hobby and not big business.
All of the prior serious competitors that Microsoft has had to deal with have been profitmaking corporations. Microsoft management at least knows the mindset, understands their competitor's goals, and this enables them to formulate a strategy for winning. Not so with Open Source - Microsoft is still trying to understand it. It's awfully hard to formulate a strategy when you don't understand the opponent's motivations or goals.
Sure, it's a fine idea to rewrite everything, and throw away all legacy code. Then there would be as few productivity apps for Microsoft platforms as there are for Linux.
There really does seem to be a critical mass of "I use Linux because I hate Microsoft" sentiment in the Linux userbase. That critical mass seems to grow every day. It's a real problem for Linux, too, because once there are enough carpers and whiners on board NOTHING will get done.
Personally, I use Win98, Win95, Linux, NT (3.51 and 4.0), and NetBSD on the various machines on my home network, (none of them dual-boot) and may be reinstalling BeOS again soon on one of my machines. The name of the game is interoperability in a mutli-platform world. All of them have their relative merits, and only fools dig their heels in and claim that the OS they happen to be using is the ONE TRUE THING. If you're gonna cop that attitude, spare us. Join a monestary somewhere.
Microsoft has *always* kindled and fostered their number 1 asset in the OS wars, which is simply Developer Mindshare. If you own the developer, you dictate what OS people use...
Anyone that's been to one of Microsofts numerous "Developer Days" knows that it's a cushy love-fest between Microsoft and a bunch of developers soaking up the glory to be had from carting around Free Shit from Microsoft. It's an excellent study in modern propaganda techniques.
Now, what Open Source represents to Microsoft is a threat to their efforts at cultivating this key asset in their strategies, which is, again, Developer Mindshare.
You see, most of the really and truly bright and smart developers out there are often very interested in looking at other peoples code, in the hopes that they can gleen some nugget or pearl of programming wisdom, or in some cases maybe rip a function or two for use in their own work.
This is a big part of a professional software developers technique - any true pro knows that he never stops learning, and in his quiet times will gladly check out someone elses code.
This is the true threat to Microsoft and it's coveted cache of "Developer Mindshare", a threat from the heart and sould of the OSS community, and it is this threat that they will be responding to with any of their own OSS-type campaigns in the future.
They'll be working on:
a) Keeping their Developer Mindshare interested in Microsoft products, and only Microsoft products. Which means if we do get source code released from them, it'll be specific to Win32-based platforms, and will leave just enough out to make porting not worthwhile. Or it'll be really crappy parts of their Win32 universe, as others have pointed out.
b) Cultivating new developers by giving them more Free Shit from Microsoft, which will more than likely take form of a CD bundled with source code from Microsoft for new programmers to seek wisdom from, or steal stuff from for their own products (which will only run on Microsoft OS'es).
And watch for a sacrificial lamb gesture: they'll probably make a "Lite" version of their developer tools freely available for download off the 'net. Maybe Win2k will come with a "Lite" version of Visual Basic or something, or their C compiler will be released, with all of it's Microsoft-isms carefully designed to make code a pain in the ass to port to other OS's...
What the OSS community needs to watch for is the "Free Shit from Microsoft" factor. Anything we can do to make the "Free Shit from Microsoft" less valuable to a newbie developer is worth the effort...
Its the *NEW* developer that we need to be attracting to the OSS camp, and away from the greedy clutches from Microsoft, and I believe that Microsoft know this all too well...
The line in the sand has been drawn.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is what effect this might have on *other* companies. Yeah, none of us want to become unpaid Microsoft coders. But there are plenty of other bits of code we'd love to have access to, graphics card drivers for one. Microsoft revealing their source code (clearly it's not open source, it's making the source to proprietary apps available but still restrictively licensed) might have a significant influence on other companies that currently protect even the most irrelevant IP like it was the Crown Jewels. The "If Microsoft did it, maybe we should" meme could be quite powerful and useful.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
i've read many of these postings, and it seems that microsoft are damned if they do, damned if they don't.
/. either randomly flaming them, spreading FUD about them or just ranting.
MS have been so demonised by fanatical linux zealots that, let's face it, whatever they say or do from now until the end of time, there will be people on
My advice? grow up and get a life.
I'd guess that Microsoft wouldn't use the GPL, BSD, or artistic licenses. I'm certain that they would control all rights to distributing binaries of their source (you won't see Joe's Word 98).
Microsoft is just doing it to be on the latest bandwagon, they're doing it because they feel it will ultimately make them money. They don't want to miss the boat like they missed the Internet. I think most businesses which are truly in the Open Source market (Cygnus, for example) are there because they believe in it. Microsoft will only muddy the waters with proprietary licenses.
The only products of theirs that are worth open sourcing are the operating systems. It'd be nice to have the source so Windows programmers could more easily diagnose system crashes and strange behavior. Open sourcing Microsoft Word would never work---you think Mozilla had a long ramp up time, imagine Microsoft Word!
Just remember, if Microsoft open sources anything it won't be for your good, it'll be for theirs. You won't be able to distribute changes or binaries. It won't be Open Source (tm), it'll be Microsoft Semi-Open Source with an End User License Agreement that would make RMS puke.
Uh huh.
I'm sure the guys over at WineHQ couldn't find a single peice of code that they could need.
You'd have to admit, open sourced Windows would be a great step in getting win32 applications working CORRECTLY on Linux. While they're doing a great job with Wine, there's still a lot to do that would be a lot easier with the origional source (GPLed of course)
RANT
i was going to quote the same line...m$ is just a roving preditor, cashed up and looking to get in on the latest fad to increase market share.
SERIOUS QUESTION
would anyone in their right mind want to hack for instance a GNU-NT? (i'm thinking something fast and with a lot of hard drive space.) would anyone hazard a guess as to what type of machine setup one would need to do this?
does anyone know what compiler m$ uses to compile NT code? surely not Visual C++? does anyone know the answer to this. imop, any such effort by m$ to open their code would meet the same response wrt the open source community as with aol/netscape mozilla escapade. i couldn't see a useable development cycle using this model.
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
If Microsoft released anything worth releasing under a proper Open Source (by definition) licence (preferably GNU so the source can be used in other GNU projects - if there's anything worth having) Microsoft would be in the situation where there would be many companies (and individuals) package Windows up and offer their own distributions of Windows. They could start to offer better support packages than MS would offer and MS would lose out severely.
Netscape elearsed their source as an effort to save their declining market share. Microsoft is still going from strength to strength and although their product quality would surely improve if they open sourcsd it they would lose millions of dollars (and what do you think MS is concerned with quality or making money).
So if they're going to make anything open source it is going to be under their terms and certainly not under an existing open source licence. There would be no freedom (in the sense of free speech, and probably not even free beer!), MS may even charge a fee to access the source and even if not they'll limit the freedom to redistribute binaries / modifications.
Perhaps they'll only open source components of the OS that Microsoft developers are having difficulty with in the hope that the OSS community will solve all their problems. Well that will be unlikely unless they can then incorporate the code into their own projects.
Basically no reasonbto get excited over.
--
Well, good. Personally, I'm glad to see M$ start thinking about SOMETHING useful. If they went Open Source, we might be able to replace the $ with a S. If windows had a global community behind it like Linux does, imagine where Windows would take off to. One can't deny that with a little support, Windows would, without a doubt, be an incredible OS. (Can you say memory management?)
:wq
--
'Ballmer hinted that one area would concern portions of the code that related to database connectivity, which many developers find "complicated and difficult to understand." '
Open source is exactly the wrong way to go about solving this problem. If the interface is complicated and messy, what's the code like?
Unless they're encouraging people to work on said code, and folding any changes back into the code, they're wasting their time. And I for one would not work for free for the world's richest corporation. (Not that they'd want my meagre skills, but there you go.)
K.
-
--
To the extent that I wear skirts and cheap nylon slips, I've gone native.
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
Actually, it's often easier to write code to implement a complicated interface, since it puts more :-)
responsibility on the user to manage things. I don't know what the situation is here, of course
The problem is, once you expose the implementation, people write to the implementation rather than the interface. Say you change the implementation but keep the interface. Code that depends on, say, the internal structure of an opaque context previously accessible only through API calls, can be broken.
Of course in a perfect world, developers wouldn't do this, but we don't live in a perfect world.
K.
-
--
To the extent that I wear skirts and cheap nylon slips, I've gone native.
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
Are you saying that there is no 'legacy' (i.e. old and buggy) interfaces in Linux?
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
"I don't call that a full embrace of the open source model," he added. "On the other hand, we're trying to understand what it is that really brings the benefit."
No, it's not a 'full embrace', a 'full embrace' is a choke-hold, and open source is a slippery little bugger.
Let's not forget, while we pat each other on the backs to celebrate the victory of open source over the tyranical Microsoft, that M$ did a lot of thinking about Digital Research, Lotus, Netscape...
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
"...there are a great number of bugs that WE can't fix, because it'd break existing apps."
Where have I heard this before? Oh, yes! Macintosh System 7.0 had to preserve a number of the less desirable artifacts from System 6 to avoid breaking Word and Excel in places where they ignored Apple's programming rules. FEEEL how much pity I have for MS now.
I read this action thusly: 1. How can we ride the coattails of the "open source fad?" 2. How can we get the benefits of "open source" without opening our source? 3. How can we change the rules or definition of "open source" to our best advantage?
Our response as a community should be: 1. We will not debug commercial software _just_ because it's open source. Open-sourcing a commercial product is not an excuse to short-change quality control or publish buggy software. 2. We will not accept anything less than full source disclosure. 3. We will use the courts to prevent anyone from misusing the "Open Source" trademark. Oh, and a last point just for MS: 4. We refuse to pay real money for the "privilege" of beta-testing future products.
While Billy boy, who hasn't quite managed to grow up and give up his adolescent world domination fantasies, gets excited about mind-staggering new technologies like electronic mail in 1996 and, like your average Bad Guy, spends his days (and nights) contemplating various ways of crushing his oh-so-inconvenient opponents, Ballmer gives credit where it's due and admits that the Open Source development model is actually working - no buts. And don't forget the briefing with Microsoft executives where he stressed that the quality of Microsoft software must be improved.
He might even be serious. If he is, I'd say he's the guy who can stop USS Microsoft from sinking into the sea of free, quality software. On the other hand, he might the proverbial last straw..
Houston, we have a problem.
If MS suddenly went banannas and open-sourced every single app/OS they offered, would that suddenly change what everyone thought of them?
Would that make them more popular in the open source community? If it didn't, wouldn't that make the proponents of open source hypocrits?
Think about it, would you think differently about MS? After thinking about it myself, as an advocate of the 'open source movement', I came to the conclusion that I would still have the same dislike for MS, and I still wouldn't support them in any way - be it financially or otherwise. Am I the only one that comes to this conclusion?
If I'm not the only one, then this raises the question: if it really is the open-source model that is driving the success of Linux, then why wouldn't people feel differently about supporting MS if it was open-sourced?
I guess there could be lots of answers to this question. The first one that pops into my mind is that maybe it really isn't the fact that Linux is open-sourced that is creating its success, but instead the fact that Linux just isn't a MS product.
So, by following this thought process (which is fully based on my assumptions!), you can come to the conclusion that MS will not be any more successful by 'copying Linux' (and all other successful open-sourced software) and open-sourcing it's products. The only way MS can be successful is by not being MS.
Just another crazy thought that came out of yet another sleepless night.
--SONET
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. --Benjamin Franklin
Folks, I'd like to remind you this is Steve Balmer we are talking about. He's not a coder, not even like Bill Gates is. Gates has been silent on the issue, because he doesn't want to be involved. Balmer doesn't know code, he doesn't know software, he only knows two things: marketting and money.
Let's get inside his head, people. He "knows" that:
1) Open Source is a buzzword. Like JAVA (come on, here people, this is a trend), it is open and yet strangely helps another company more than them, and other big companies like IBM are embracing it. Just like java. Hmmm...
2) Linux is a rival operating system, it runs on Intel hardware. It's just like OS/2. Pay it lip service about what it doesn't do yet, while they are light years ahead. Don't give it any more apps.
3) GNU is a bunch of kooks who think software should be free. Cast them as ranting lunatics who have an idea (Open Source) that is now theirs (yoink). Then spread FUD about 'em. (Do you want these hippies making YOUR software? Or someone you know has your best interests in mind because you've given us all your money??)
4) Call your broker and congradulate your stock owners. Enjoy a short vacation somewhere tropical and come back in time to destroy BeOS while praising it. "This would have been a great operating system, but as you can clearly see they do nothing useful, while our system does everything and for less money. We recomend you keep giving us your money and ignore these guys."
-Ben
Speak the truth. It's a novel approach in this biz, but it's the Open Source approach. When you get your favorite Linux distro, the source CD says "Here's how we did it!" There is no back-room stuff about how this stuff is put together. You get the stuff with the blueprints.
The truth is that half-hearted OSS doesn't work. OSS contributors won't contribute if they feel that they are being used, and those contributors tend to know if they are or not. Does OSS work as a post-proprietary conversion? The experiments in Netscape and Apple are still taking place. We'll tell people the truth when we figure out what it is.
Our advantage over Microsoft is that we cherish the truth, and we share it promiscuously. Never let them take that advantage away from us. The truth shall set your code free.
--The basis of all love is respect
1: Microsoft does nothing remotely like Open Source. Business as usual.
2: Microsoft fully embraces Open Source and copylefts the entirety of Windows. By embracing I mean getting the mindset, and believing in it. Nothing less than Netscape's own buy-in would really count. This would take nothing less than a certifyable miracle (or heavy drugs). If this happens, a beautiful thing will happen. A fully Open Source Windows would turn into something worth running in a few years.
3: Microsoft pays lip service to Open Source and tries to fit it into their current business model. They try to embrace and extend OSS, for development gain and/or mindshare gain.
If they choose option 3, they play to their own weakness and will lose in both development cycles and mindshare.
Technically, a partial Open Source strategy for Microsoft will work about as well as those of Apple and Al Gore. They will not get any assistance from the hacker community at large.
Regarding mindshare, they will gain kudos only with those who think that Open Source is a Good Thing, but don't have a clue about what it is. I am not cynical enough to believe that there is a significant population of PHBs who meet those criteria.
We hold the advantage precisely because Open Source is so antiintuitive. If one knows a little about Open Source, one concludes that the OSS buzz is coming from certified lunatics. One has to fully grok OSS to think that it's useful. even most PHBs think that Open Source is some form of madness. Those who think that OSS is a Good Thing are, by and large, those who understand it. And they will see the problems with a half-hearted approach.
There are some that belive in the Gospel According to Bill; the term Open Source will turn from evil to wonderful the instant Microsoft "embraces" it. However, Microsoft can gain mindshare out of mindless MS zealots by releasing the Bill Gates Cardio Kickboxing workout DVD-ROM.
--The basis of all love is respect
Anyone really keen on fixing Microsoft's bugs for them? I think it's a pretty hollow move, MS lets us tinker with some of thier coveted source-code, while keeping all the really useful code closed off.
No thanks. I already have several "open source solutions"...
Thing is, it's all well and good for you to plan on fixing the bugs - but there are a great number of bugs that WE can't fix, because it'd break existing apps.
That, unfortunately, is the Catch 22 we find ourselves stuck with.
Coming soon - pyrogyra