Microsoft Cracking Open the Door To OSS

AlexGr sends us to a long piece in Redmond Magazine on Microsoft's changing relationship to open source. The article centers around a profile of Bill Hilf, Microsoft's internal and external evangelist for OSS. It's an even-handed piece that fully reflects the continuing deep skepticism in the community of Microsoft's motives and actions.

I don't want an open-source Microsoft.

[Seumas]

There was a lot of progress made in the world when we had Soviet Russia to rally against during the cold war. Get rid of Microsoft and much of software and the open-source movement will stagnate. Not necessarily because of any direct improvements, contributions or achievements by Microsoft, but because they are the central evil empire around which all opposing viewpoints, practices and communities can clearly see as the colossal against which they're flinging the rocks of their own progress and movements.

Re:Can't and won't trust them.

[OmegaBlac]

This cycle seems to repeat itself every couple of weeks for the past year or so. One week some magazine or website claims that Microsoft is embracing or willing to work with FOSS, then the next week Balmer is launching threats about Linux violating their "IP". Microsoft's past actions tell me that they will not change until they are on the verge of defeat (going out of business).

Halloween Documents off OSI

[Russ Nelson]

Yes, it's in recognition of Microsoft's increasing acceptance of Open Source that we moved the Halloween Documents off our website onto Eric Raymond's website. We only have a link from http://opensource.org/halloween/ [opensource.org] to Eric's site. Perhaps if Microsoft makes some more concrete step towards being a member of the Open Source community (e.g. by sumitting their licenses for OSI approval, hint, hint), we might remove even the link.

Re:Motives?

[CastrTroy]

I don't use outlook and exchange much, but are they really that complicated that open source can't provide an alternative that works just as well? We have Linux which is a better OS. We have PostgreSQL which is a good DB. So why can't we provide a mail/groupware server and client application. It doesn't seem all that hard compared to all the other stuff that open source produces, why is this field so hard?

dark cyberpunk linux futurism

[malevolentjelly]

Is this a sign of a coming linux apocalypse? Interesting question. If linux ever becomes the primary desktop system, we'll see products hitting the market like "Microsoft Office for Linux" or "Visual Studio Linux Edition" or "Linux.NET" or "DirectX for Linux"... I'm pretty sure the future is more gray than people might expect. There's no way in hell there'll be the magical open source free software unicorn land that GNU and FSF might anticipate- but a hybrid market? Quite possible.

I'm not a fan of Linux or its many cacophonous ideas of a desktop system, but I won't care by that point because I'll be driving a flying car.

There is no altruism, only agendas & interests

[gelfling]

Redmond, sensibly, will do what is best for Redmond, however they conceive of that. Whether they take a strategic view and work with OSS in the context of what is good for both Redmond and OSS is good for Redmond, or not, is up for discussion later on. In either case, right now, right here OSS is a tactical approach for Redmond. Tomorrow might be a different tactic - who knows. But one should always remember that for better or worse, whether they are actually good at it or not, Redmond should and will do what is best for their own interests and agendas.

What plausible benefit is there to working with OSS? Well what benefit was there to working with Novell or IBM or anyone else? It's to co-opt them and share technology to the point where it can help a little and hurt a little less. Working with OSS can keep the OSS communities from straying too far and there may be some actual technical upside to code sharing. But beyond that if you're looking for some goodwill, community action or just plain old being nice, i'm afraid you are badly mistaken.

Re:Accomplishments?

[consumer]

I can vouch for Bill's work on open source. We worked together at a web startup before he went to IBM. We mostly worked on a LAMP platform based around mod_perl, and he put a lot of effort into making sure that our patches to the open source code we used (and there were quite a few) were contributed back. We presented a paper together at an OSS conference about the work we did there. He's the real deal.

M$ Accomplishments? Another nice thing ruined.

[twitter]

What have YOU done for OSS? You OSS zealots (particularly twitter) are doing more harm than good.

Advocating freedom never hurts anyone in a free society, but thanks for thinking of me. I love you guys, and all this new M$ tone that spews forth here.

What you say about Mr. Hilf may be true, but I'd like to know what he's done since joining M$. The article is a collection of confusing propaganda, more inflammatory than informative, and I hope it does not really reflect Mr. Hilf's beliefs:

When Bill Hilf came from IBM Corp. to join Microsoft three years ago, the company's stance on open source vacillated wildly. It would swing from outright indifference to overt nastiness. Today, something else is unfolding: Microsoft is striking a surprising balance. It has stopped dismissing open source licensing and community development as dangerous folly or evil foe, and is looking for a way to both compete and co-exist.

...

Before we start singing Kumbaya, let's state clearly it's inconceivable that Microsoft's efforts around open source have yet been widely greeted as sincere, altruistic or even legitimate by a large faction of the open source community.

Nice flame but not much content. Mr. Hilf's "dirty little secret" comment about most people being forced to run M$ first, without mention of the Federally proved monopoly, is more of the same. Oh wow, this is rich:

"I ask those folks, 'How often has Microsoft sued over IP?' The answer is two [times]," he says. "We are not a patent troll company. We protect our IP and our licenses, but we do not want to litigate."

The company responsible for the fiaSCO that's threatening everyone that they own patents on everything is not a troll? OK, that's enough fantasy reading for me today. Mr. Hilf is not the first nice thing that M$ has bought and ruined.

If these things don't reflect Mr. Hilf's opinion, let it be a lesson for those who consider working for "the enemy". they will use you and hang whatever opinion around your neck they please before they dismiss you.

That is what Microsoft does - neutralize people

[SuperKendall]

Sure, prior to joining Microsoft Bill did some things for OSS.

But what since then? That's the real question. History is littered with great minds that went to Mcirosoft and then - poof! There was no output after. Half of why Microsoft acquires these kinds of people is simply to keep them away from other companies - you noted yourself that he was the leader of IBM's global software effort. Pretty good deal to take out that kind of leader from a large competitor for just the cost of one persons salary, and you get the marketing warm and fuzzy press releases about how much Microsoft is doing with OSS because they hired this guy.

History is littered with continuous reminders of what happens to partners of Microsoft. Why should potential OSS partners be any less wary?

Re:This is an outright lie

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Oh please.
Apple *threatens* to sue all the time, even against BLOGGERS for crying out loud!
The fact is, Microsoft is always on the defense of these idiotic patent suits.
And they indemnify other parties to protect them from such suits. The 1.5 billion mp3 suit wasn't originally against MS, it was against Dell and Gateway, but MS indemnified them to protect them from the suit, so MS took the brunt of it themselves. Let me know when any OSS company does such for the good of the industry.

Moodle is a good example of this

[Rewd]

Moodle [moodle.org] is a large GPL PHP project [ohloh.net] that has benefited from Microsoft funding. Last year Microsoft paid Moodle core developers to add MS SQL Server support in Moodle to let it work better in institutions used to Microsoft platforms.

      http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=57989 [moodle.org]

The developers actually used the chance to revamp their whole database abstraction layer, effectively adding support for a number of other commercial databases as well (Oracle, Interbase etc). ;-)

Microsoft also developed Sharepoint web parts for Moodle, and an extension for Word that allows teachers to publish straight into Moodle.

      http://www.codeplex.com/Moodle2003WP [codeplex.com]

Yes, it's true there was a business case for Microsoft, because some very high profile institutions can now switch to using MS SQL, but I think overall it was a win-win for all concerned.

Re:Insert Ghandi quote here

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to work at MS when I was young and delusional, so I will only say this once and in a manner that I can not be sued in:

In my personal opinion, based on my real life experience, MS sees Linux and open source as a threat to it. In my mind they will never be 'friendly' to OSS, just willing to work strategically with what it sees as a form of competition.

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer..