First, to make clear where I stand: I live in the Microsoft world almost entirely. I would not have to, the OSS world would be fun too, but I can't say I don't like what I'm doing now. Still, I think I understand the ethics and the passion around OSS. I am a programmer after all, so how wouldn't I. Also, I understand that there would be little serious competition for MS without OSS, which would mean that MS could sell us anything, so I'm quite fond of all that OSS stuff going on.
After reading most of the discussion here, I'd like to point out a few things:
A lot of you are complaining that MS is not listening and getting it all wrong. To me it seems that that's what most of you are actually doing. Matusow made some comments that can be interpreted in various ways, and most commenters take the interpretations that don't make any sense and thereby proof what a moron he is. That's neither fair nor useful.
From the posts (including the one who says he heard the speech), the links and Matusow's own blog I'd gather that he merely pointed out that OSS cannot fulfill all expectations of openness that it's attributed with. He did not say that MS does it better, nor did he say that OSS is in reality no more open than MS.
Personally, I think that's true. This is not to say that OSS is without benefits, but there are some serious misconceptions going on about what these benefits are. If you tell somebody he should be using OSS because he can modify it to meet his requirements, that's generally wrong. The mere fact that this guy does not know and you have to tell him usually means that he does not understand the implications and is probably not up to the task. Even if he has the programming know how.
View it from an IT manager's perspective. Assume he needs to decide whether to put his IT infrastructure on Windows or Linux going forward. Assume he decides on Linux because his staff will be able to make modifications if necessary. What would happen? First, he'd loose support for the modified parts. Next, he'd loose support for some enterprise applications that are certified for a certain distribution. Finally, he'd have a whole lot of patches that need to be maintained until they are no longer required. This includes testing, patching updates, recompiling everything for every new release, recompiling code depending on your modified code... What once looked like a nice little solution for a specific problem turned into a maintenance nightmare. No IT manager wants this.
So what's left? Most people just install their Linux distribution like they'd install Windows. And never touch the source code. The wild days of OSS are over, it's no longer about hackers turning everything inside out, but about enterprise IT infrastructures with truckloads of dependecies that need to be considered and managed. The people that once played with Linux are still there, their absolute number might have even increased. But as a percentage of the Linux user community, they are getting fewer. That's an imperative consequence of OSS entering commerical and enterprise business, and not necessarily a bad thing. It's also no reason NOT to use OSS. It's just a fact that one should be able to point out without being flamed.
(I do understand that the real advantage of the OSS process is the way the software and the distributions are created. I also understand that this is a powerful thing. Note that I'm not speaking against OSS at all.)
So is Linux getting more commercial? Sure. Is MS getting more open? I do think so, although they are nowhere close to where Linux is. But they did learn a few lessons, and they seem to be willing to learn some more. The OSS community has always pointed out that MS will lose in the long run if they fight OSS like they used to (successfully) fight their commercial competitors. Is is so hard to believe that they are beginning to understand this message?
One more thing: I'm reading comments like "greatest M$ troll ever" and "the guy's full of it" here, and the rude commen
Slashdot Mirror
After reading most of the discussion here, I'd like to point out a few things:
A lot of you are complaining that MS is not listening and getting it all wrong. To me it seems that that's what most of you are actually doing. Matusow made some comments that can be interpreted in various ways, and most commenters take the interpretations that don't make any sense and thereby proof what a moron he is. That's neither fair nor useful.
From the posts (including the one who says he heard the speech), the links and Matusow's own blog I'd gather that he merely pointed out that OSS cannot fulfill all expectations of openness that it's attributed with. He did not say that MS does it better, nor did he say that OSS is in reality no more open than MS.
Personally, I think that's true. This is not to say that OSS is without benefits, but there are some serious misconceptions going on about what these benefits are. If you tell somebody he should be using OSS because he can modify it to meet his requirements, that's generally wrong. The mere fact that this guy does not know and you have to tell him usually means that he does not understand the implications and is probably not up to the task. Even if he has the programming know how.
View it from an IT manager's perspective. Assume he needs to decide whether to put his IT infrastructure on Windows or Linux going forward. Assume he decides on Linux because his staff will be able to make modifications if necessary. What would happen? First, he'd loose support for the modified parts. Next, he'd loose support for some enterprise applications that are certified for a certain distribution. Finally, he'd have a whole lot of patches that need to be maintained until they are no longer required. This includes testing, patching updates, recompiling everything for every new release, recompiling code depending on your modified code... What once looked like a nice little solution for a specific problem turned into a maintenance nightmare. No IT manager wants this.
So what's left? Most people just install their Linux distribution like they'd install Windows. And never touch the source code. The wild days of OSS are over, it's no longer about hackers turning everything inside out, but about enterprise IT infrastructures with truckloads of dependecies that need to be considered and managed. The people that once played with Linux are still there, their absolute number might have even increased. But as a percentage of the Linux user community, they are getting fewer. That's an imperative consequence of OSS entering commerical and enterprise business, and not necessarily a bad thing. It's also no reason NOT to use OSS. It's just a fact that one should be able to point out without being flamed.
(I do understand that the real advantage of the OSS process is the way the software and the distributions are created. I also understand that this is a powerful thing. Note that I'm not speaking against OSS at all.)
So is Linux getting more commercial? Sure. Is MS getting more open? I do think so, although they are nowhere close to where Linux is. But they did learn a few lessons, and they seem to be willing to learn some more. The OSS community has always pointed out that MS will lose in the long run if they fight OSS like they used to (successfully) fight their commercial competitors. Is is so hard to believe that they are beginning to understand this message?
One more thing: I'm reading comments like "greatest M$ troll ever" and "the guy's full of it" here, and the rude commen