Slashdot Log In
MS To Become Open Source Friendly Post Gates
Posted by
timothy
on Sat Jun 28, 2008 09:18 PM
from the certainly-possible dept.
from the certainly-possible dept.
ruphus13 writes "Now that Gates has 'retired' from Microsoft, ZDNet is speculating that Microsoft will become much more Open Source friendly. From the article, 'We already see quite a different approach to dealing with OSS and OSS companies from Sam Ramji's group [which is] doing a great job in establishing dialog,' said Rafael Laguna, CEO of Open-Xchange and a former marketing exec at SUSE Linux. 'With Gates' departure, the only mammoth remaining is Ballmer. With him away in a near future, Microsoft will definitely open up. They have to.'" Microsoft could become the world's largest open source company; they've certainly made some concessions to it lately.
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
Nazis to become Pro-Jew post Hitler.
Christians to become Pro-Reason post Apocalypse.
KKK to become Pro-Black post Hanging.
System complexity driving OSS? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to wonder if the complexity of modern software is part of the big reason driving OSS, it would seem to me as our systems get faster, we can increase the complexity of our programs ad infintum, and at some point it 'breaks the camels back' and no business can hope to maintain something so large and unwieldy.
Re:System complexity driving OSS? (Score:5, Funny)
...at some point it 'breaks the camels back' and no business can hope to maintain something so large and unwieldy.
So, you're saying that in the future, all programmes will be written in perl?
Parent
Re:System complexity driving OSS? (Score:5, Funny)
...one line of PERL!
Parent
Re:System complexity driving OSS? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:System complexity driving OSS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Very insightful. I think this can be boiled down to:
Businesses write closed-source software that becomes monolithic and unmanageable because they need to add features to remain competitive in a market.
Open-source software stays small and relatively manageable (I'm sure the Linux kernel is still a bitch to sift through, as nice as it is compared to the Windows kernel) because developers know that if their code becomes unmanageable, they aren't going to be paid to manage it.
Plus, I think it's got something to do with being available to the public. I mean, if there was a giant billboard over your head that counted how many days it's been since you last brushed your teeth, would you skip it as often as you do?
Parent
Re:System complexity driving OSS? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to wonder if the complexity of modern software is part of the big reason driving OSS, it would seem to me as our systems get faster, we can increase the complexity of our programs ad infintum, and at some point it 'breaks the camels back' and no business can hope to maintain something so large and unwieldy.
Personally I thought that with increased complexity you'd want more coordination and centralized control, not less. With the OSS philosophy and bazaar model a lot influenced by "do one task well", cross-integration is usually poor. Like say building a great e-mail application and a great calendar application but neglecting how these work together to function well. I guess it depends on what you're looking at but at least in the software I see making that kind of modular approach with lasting interfaces and replacable modules would be a huge undertaking, compared to just saying that in version X.1 we change this interface slightly on both sides.
Parent
Re:System complexity driving OSS? (Score:5, Insightful)
As software modules get larger, eventually they split into separate modules. As hardware evolves much of the functionality of the driver moved into firmware eg. hard disk drives and graphics cards.
The problem is that proprietary OS vendors don't have the resources to write drivers for every piece of consumer hardware. Microsoft relies on the hardware vendors to do this themselves, while the OSS community can do this providing the hardware specifications are freely available.
Anyone else really loses out, because they don't have the financial resources to pay for entire teams of programmers to do this, and the hardware vendors can't afford development kits for every different piece of hardware.
The only alternative solution is for there to be a standard device driver file format - NDISwrapper is one way of achieving this.
Parent
Speculation means nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll believe it when I see it and not a moment before. With Microsoft's record anything short of unequivocal action should be treated with absolute scepticism.
Re:Speculation means nothing (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft will definitely open up.
Or close down. I know which I'd prefer.
Parent
Ha ha ha ha (Score:5, Funny)
Ha ha ha ha
(catches breath)
Ha ha ha
remember the OLD IBM? (Score:5, Insightful)
the term, FUD originated with IBM, not Microsoft.
so i won't say it can't happen, but i'm not holding my breath either
I suppose... (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah right (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft competes for Brainpower (Score:5, Insightful)
I feel like Microsoft has taken some important steps towards playing nice with Open Source, and encouraging interoperability. Some examples include projects like IronPython, the WIX Installer tools, the fact that Silverlight actually supports at least one non-Windows platform, and the extremely detailed communications protocol documents recently released on MSDN. Sure, part of this has been for legal compliance reasons, and it turns out customers value things like interoperability.
I think there's a subtler reason that will become more apparent in the coming years. Microsoft needs to hire new employees if it wants to stay relevant, and it competes with the likes of Google and others for these new hires. It also happens that probably the very best college candidates are the ones that have contributed to open source projects. These are the students that went beyond what their curriculum required of them, and showed the drive to understand and contribute to a real-world project on their spare time. This kind of experience is valuable in a new hire, but many of them would be turned off by an anti open source attitude and look for more open source-friendly employers. In other words, to attract the best young minds (which is crucial to Microsoft's long term success), Microsoft is going to have to become much more friendly to open source projects.
Green envy and spam (Score:5, Funny)
Green envy and spam [slashdot.org]
With apologies to Dr "Suse", to the tune of "Green Eggs and Ham".
Linux can. Linux can. Use Linux.
That Linux can! That Linux can! I do not like that Linux can!
Do you like open sourcing plan?
I do not like that Linux can. I do not like the open sourcing plan.
Would you like to free source share?
I would not like to free source share. I would not like it anywhere. I do not like open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.
Would you like it very stable? Would you like it to enable?
I do not like it very stable. I do not like it to enable. I do not like to free source share. I do not like it anywhere. I do not like the open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.
Would you use it in a X-Box? Would you use it if it ROCKS?
Not on X-box. Not if it rocks. Not if very stable. Not to enable. I would not let them free source share. I would not let them anywhere. I would not allow open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.
Would you? Could you? In your biz? Use it! Use it! Here it is.
I would not, could not, in our biz.
You may like it. You will see. You may like it if it's free!
I would not, could not if its free. Not in our biz! It should never be!
I do not like it on the X-box. I do not like it that it rocks. I do not like it amongst our biz. I do not like it that it is. I do not like they free source share. I do not like that anywhere. I do not like that Linux can. I do not like you Linux man!
service! service! service! service! Could you, would you, as a service?
Not as a service! Not if it's free! Not in my biz! Man! Let not it be! I would not, could not, on a X-box. I could not, would not, if it rocks. I will not use it if its stable. I will not use it even to enable. I will not let them free source share. I will not let them anywhere. I do not like open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.
Say! if in copyleft? always free copyleft! Would you, could you, copyleft?
I would not, could not, in copyleft.
Would you, could you, why so nervous?
I would not, could not, I'm NOT nervous. Not as copyleft. Not as a service. Not in my biz. Not if it's free. I do not like that it can, you see. Not if it's stable. Not on X-box. Not to enable. Not if it rocks. I will not let them free source share. I do not like it anywhere!
You do not like open sourcing plan?
I do not like that Linux can.
Could you, would you use what we wrote?
I would not, could not, use what you wrote!
Would you, could you, to avoid your bloat?
I could not, would not, avoid bloat. I will not, will not, use what you wrote. I will not compete with them as a service. I will not because it makes us nervous. Not in our biz! Not if it's free! Not if it is! You let me be! I do not like it on the X-Box. I do not like it that it Rocks. I will not use it if it's stable. I do not like that it does enable. I do not like they free source share. I do not like it ANYWHERE I do not like open sourcing plan!I do not like that, Linux can.
You do not like it. So you say. Try it! Try it! And you may. Try it and you may, I say.
Man! If you will let me be, I will try it. You will see.
Say! I like open sourcing plan! I do! I like that, Linux can! And I would use it because it's stable. And I could use it to enable...
And I could charge for providing a service. And I could copyleft without being nervous. And in my biz. And still source free. For you can still charge for a service fee!
So I will use it on the networked X-box. And I will promote it because it ROCKS. And I will use it because it's stable. And I will use it to enable.
And I will use it here and there. Say! I can use it ANYWHERE!
I do so like open sourcing plan! Thank you! Thank you, Linux man!
By The Cat with the Red Hat
"They have to" (Score:5, Interesting)
That's Internet Bubble talk.
There's still no definitive evidence that there's a viable business model in an open source, software only company.
Most profitable "open source" companies are in the closed hardware business and just use Linux inside.
It's still an open question whether traditional companies who buy open source companies like MySQL will ever see their investment pay off. What is the balance sheet for Sun with respect to Star/Open Office?
If you had inside information that MS was going to make all their products open source, that would be a great time to sell the stock short.
Re:April Fools? (Score:5, Insightful)
So what would be evidence of change? Well, they'd need to move to an OSS compatible business model for starters but right now they're still mostly about selling boxes of software. They don't have a services-side in the same way that IBM do. They have some hardware -- the mouse/keyboard/peripherals sell well. The Xbox is about selling hardware below cost but they make it back in SDKs and licensing -- so they couldn't open that.
So there's actually very little of the company whose business model is compatible with open source licensing. That's where you'll see change, if it happens -- not in Bill Gates leaving Microsoft.
Parent
Re:April Fools? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh right, after rigging the ISO process with OOXML and their triumph over open standards [robweir.com] they're going to go open source?
Well, despite all the effort they put into getting OOXML approved, they will (theoretically) implement ODF in the next version of Office.
Parent
Re:April Fools? (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect they will follow the customers and the money.
So there's actually very little of the company whose business model is compatible with open source licensing.
As they watch their pie slice shrink and then shrink rapidly as open source get a solid foothold, they will have little choice.
I prefer legal software. In comparing licenses, the one that permits legal installation on all the machines in my home vs a one license one machine restriction, a slightly differing interface becomes easy to trade to reject BSA threats.
MS will have to effectively compete, sue like crazy, or shrink.
They are attempting to compete and lock-in, but are failing while OSS expands. It's not just the Unix servers in the target zone anymore. The battle for the desktop is beginning.
Parent
Not true. (Score:5, Funny)
So there's actually very little of the company whose business model is compatible with open source licensing. That's where you'll see change, if it happens -- not in Bill Gates leaving Microsoft.
Actually, Microsoft is quite compatible with open source. There is a lot of open source built right into the OS. The integration of data with internet programs has allowed for the open sourcing of your address books, and vulnerabilities in the mail and web clients have led to the open sourcing of plenty of personal data.
Parent
Business model and revenue (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It's like this every year. (Score:5, Insightful)
...legal threats...
I am still waiting for that list of 235 patents.
Parent
Re:Skepticism aside... (Score:5, Interesting)
Lots of people would spend the better part of a year reading and rewriting code. By the end of that year, wine would be nearly complete, Windows and Linux would support each other's binaries (probably with a patch to the linux kernel, as I'm sure Linus wouldn't include it with that little testing). and the more broken part of Windows would be fixed. It's hard to tell whether XOrg would include Windows code, or whether they'd fork off another project to support the API. The windows code would fragment into dozens of distros, almost immediately. Of these, maybe a couple would last longer than a half year. There would be lots of interpretations of how to fix or change the windows code to bring it more inline with the linux philosophy. Eventually, I think most people would come to accept Windows as a separate end-product, but that wouldn't stop some people from working on combining them.
It would be a couple of years before the first solid Linux distros started shipping which included support for Windows programs (and actually worked)
Parent
Re:has done more?! (Score:5, Insightful)
It depends on your definition of "thriving". Without Wintel (or some other standard platform), most of us couldn't even afford a computer.
Obviously Crays and Connection Machines were never going to be home computers.
Although the design legacy of the x86 still sucks today, their really isn't a microprocessor significantly faster. Also keep in mind that Windows NT ran on the Alpha as well as x86 and the marketplace couldn't care less.
Parent