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
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. --
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.
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.
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
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