This year at OSCON it seemed that you couldn't throw a stone without hitting someone from Microsoft (and in fact, I'm sure several people did). They were working very hard to make themselves known, and working desperately to change public opinion of Microsoft's involvement in the open source community. Linux.com's Nathan Willis took a look at what they were preaching, with a hefty dose of skepticism, and tries to postulate what the "angle" is. Of course, the powers that be at Microsoft may have finally seen the writing on the wall and felt the pressure from Google enough to alter their strategy a bit. For now I guess we'll have to wait with guarded optimism (or laughable contempt, depending on how old/jaded you are).
No doubt that approach remains dominant, but it's too simplistic. The article seems to conclude that Microsoft is after hearts and minds, developers, specifically, but anyone else within earshot would help just the same.
That would make the latest developments more akin to Walmart's "our valued associates" commercials, oil companies touting "green" initiatives, US car makers promising economic turnarounds with concept cars, or, if you're so inclined, presidential political political strategies that ranged from compassionate conservatism, to "restoring honor", to the latest "I'm Different (honest!)" by McCain.
No doubt that approach remains dominant, but it's too simplistic. The article seems to conclude that Microsoft is after hearts and minds, developers, specifically, but anyone else within earshot would help just the same.
That would make the latest developments more akin to Walmart's "our valued associates" commercials, oil companies touting "green" initiatives, US car makers promising economic turnarounds with concept cars, or, if you're so inclined, presidential political political strategies that ranged from compassionate conservatism, to "restoring honor", to the latest "I'm Different (honest!)" by McCain.
Right. That's step 1, "Embrace". I'm interested to see what "Extend" is in this context. Possibly a new open source license? They've made steps down that road, but not seriously.
Right. That's step 1, "Embrace". I'm interested to see what "Extend" is in this context. Possibly a new open source license? They've made steps down that road, but not seriously.
As a college student nearing graduation (and thus target to a barrage of recruitment efforts), I don't really think MS is specifically after the classic "3E" method here.
What MS realizes right now is that their company is staffed by a lot of career types - people who want to clock their hours, get their paychecks, and spend time with their family. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but they've also seen the effect of Google - a company full of people who would be willing to throw in insane hours and effort to get a cool, hip product out the door. Given MS's current obsession with *being like Google*, I suspect they want their share of the hip, dedicated, insanely motivated developer base... aka open source devs.
My school is very pro-open-source (what college isn't?), and recently MS has been sending more and more "open source evangelist" types to recruitment talks. The whole point is to convince people to join MS, because they're no longer evil, and are now doing cool open source, innovative projects!
My school is very pro-open-source (what college isn't?), and recently MS has been sending more and more "open source evangelist" types to recruitment talks. The whole point is to convince people to join MS, because they're no longer evil, and are now doing cool open source, innovative projects!
Oh, to be sure, they like that. But that's only part of it. This is much bigger than just hiring entry-level devs - this is about combating the toehold open source has in the business market. They see how Google is propping up the Mozilla foundation and Sun OpenOffice to combat MS, and they'd like to turn the tables.
I could see them doing a lot of things. I could see them funding a few initiatives that compete against rivals where it makes sense. I can also see them trying to wheedle themselves in so they can attempt to splinter the community. And history has shown the best way to do that is with the one thing MS has a lot of: money.
MS has gotten where it has by being ruthless. I don't see that changing, and to think otherwise might be a little naive. Money and incompatible licensing is the best way to fracture the community. If I were MS, that's what I'd try.
Microsoft cannot extinguish a methodology no matter how much they want to. Sure, they can manipulate the governing systems, they can sue people for "patent infringement" and other garbage, but at the end of the day, open source will continue to proceed unabated.
Microsoft cannot extinguish a methodology no matter how much they want to. Sure, they can manipulate the governing systems, they can sue people for "patent infringement" and other garbage, but at the end of the day, open source will continue to proceed unabated.
Really? It seems like it would be difficult, but taking out Linux would be the same as winning an election. You just have to introduce a new feature that's so spectacular, that over 50% of the user base will sacrifice the fact that it's not open source to have it. They will give it away, for free, as in beer. They will now have divided the user base and continue to do so until Linux has forked so many times it's unusable.
Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish has a lot in common with another tactic. [wikipedia.org]
I am lost. Just what is Microsoft supposed to do to make people who use (F)OSS happy?
Open up their protocols/file formats so that non-Microsoft tools can interact with them. Otherwise, I really don't care. They've made too many mistakes in the past (Outlook, ActiveX, auto-executing document macros/email attachments/media) for me to ever trust them with anything important.
I like Unix and the Unix shell. I like KDE. I like the way X11 networks. For any system that I rely on, I must have source code that I can fix and recompile. I see no reason to ever switch. One size does not fit all, and I'm O.K. with that.
[on whether to help the Klingons]
Captain James T. Kirk: They're animals.
Captain Spock: Jim, there is an historic opportunity here.
Captain James T. Kirk: Don't believe them. Don't trust them.
Captain Spock: They're dying.
Captain James T. Kirk: Let them die!
[pauses... Spock cocks his head in surprise.
Honestly, folks, what makes you think any Klingons, err, microsofties can be trusted in this day and age?
or maybe this is closer to home:
Steve Jobs (from Pirates of Silly Valley): "Dead culture in a crumbling castle"...
They're just saying "nice doggy" until they can find a rock.
Maybe this is what the teachers meant when they said: "Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it".
Or how many times do you insist on touching that hot stove?
Really. They need us more than we need them. Ignore them, move along, nothing to see...
Listen, I hate to break this to you and *every damn person* (nothing personal, you're far from the only one) that thinks the mere mention of chairs whenever the topic of Steve Ballmer- or even just MS- comes up is funny... it's not.
Yes it is.
Secondly, most of the "jokes" aren't; they just mention chairs.
Which is all that's needed to rekindle the fire that apparently got Ballmer's ass so hot he had to throw it.
This shouldn't be mistaken for true group-shared humour. Whether it's funny is irrelevant. People don't even bother making true jokes about it any more, they just mention chairs as a shortcut. It's canned humour... it's cargo cult humour, because most of those jokes have lost sight of what was meant to be funny in the first place. They just go through the motions of mentioning Ballmer on the assumption that it's "funny".
Actually, something that's "funny" is based purely on individual perception. Given that most people around SD *still*, after 3 years, mention the Olympic event of chair-throwing (ha ha!), they still find humorous value in it. You can't tell someone that something isn't funny if they think it is. That's like telling someone "You don't like cheese." If they actually do like cheese, you're just trying to tell them what they like. Which is exactly what you're trying to do in your comment.
Do we actually think it's funny any more? Do we actually think that others find it funny any more? Or do we just all know that everyone else has implicitly agreed that this topic is considered funny?
Yes, yes, and no. Again, something is funny to someone when they think it's funny. Obviously, a LOT of people think that a balding, fat billionaire throwing a chair and screaming like a toddler because someone left their company for another, more honest and progressive company...well sh*t yeah, that's funny as hell!! Hahahahahaha!
A reporter is visiting a prison in order to do a story. She notices during lunch that people occasionally yell out numbers and everyone else laughs. "47!" (laughter). "25!" (laughter).
Curious she asks her guard escort the story behind the numbers and laughter. The guard tells her, "these guys have been here so long they don't even bother with the jokes anymore. They just yell out the number and everyone laughs because they know the punchline."
Amazed, she watches a while longer. Another inmate stands up and yells, "13!" but gets no response.
The guard casually says, "old Sammy. He never could tell a joke."
*IF* MS wanted to be open source friendly, things like OOXML would just vanish
So, to be friendly to open source, they should get rid of the only open document format that can handle billions of legacy documents without losing fidelity???
Nah, they need not go that far. Just OPEN SOURCING a valid reference implementation would be okay.
Hell, HAVING a reference implementation AT ALL wouldnt hurt either!
And while we are on our wishlist, they should start transitioning from ooxml to odf, because that would be FRIENDLY to opensource instead of just yapping.
And then youre also quite ignorant: ooxml looses fidelity and office 2007 cant even open office 2000 files...
Man... who the hell do you think youre talking about?
Context my ass. He called it a cancer, and that word has distinct connotations. If he had not intended those connotations, he has had plenty of time to apologize or correct the record. That he hasn't done so speaks volumes.
Microsoft's biggest problem isn't Google, it is that everyone is writing for a platform that is vendor neutral. It's extraordinarily difficult to find a business client that wants a client program - they want everything on the web whether it is stupid or not, and that's what has MS really worried. Google has failed in web apps fairly well, besides search, so they aren't the threat. What is the threat is that no one is really writing any sort of new applications for Windows SDK,.NET, etc. Open source people are at least interested in desktop applications development or PC applications development for Linux, and so, this could be part of a larger effort to at least get their stuff on Windows. Ultimately, Microsoft would rather have Windows running Linux applications on it desktop, then to have no desktop at all!
Google needs to release its web office applications as a server that can be installed in a corporate datacenter. That would allow corporations to maintain full and auditable control over their data, while leaving the high cost of MS Office behind.
that goes against google's core principle of hoarding as much data as possible
Google sells a server you can drop in to index your internal corporate network, dropping in a similar apps server doesn't seem any different from a 'data hoarding' perspective.
Once I saw the Google search appliance in action, I started to wonder about Google's business. Sure - they're making money with advertising. But I also wonder if all these beta web apps aren't just proving grounds / test beds for enterprise services. What better way to test out your tech than ask the public to throw every conceivable (and even unimagined) kind of data at it and see how it works (as well as watch how they're making their data and your system work for them).
The argument that Willis makes about MS wanting to lure F/OSS developers back is quite accurate. I just wonder how much MS's past behaviors will hurt them in this endeavor. Many people, especially those closely aligned with projects like Apache, Open Office, etc. are well aware of MS's historic practice of "embrase, extend, extinguish" so they're likely to be very cautious about any olive branches that they offer. I wonder if this well documented behavior of MS's is likely to doom such tactics to failure in the long run. As the next generation of programmers gets their feet wet they'll likely read & hear about all the trouble MS has caused, and see growing number of F/OSS projects. My guess is that many of them will likely deduce for themselves that sticking with F/OSS as much as possible is the preferred track to go and that they shouldn't trust MS themselves like those before them. Perhaps some folks within MS have also realized this and that's why they're starting to "cozy up" to F/OSS. They likely realize they've got a LONG way to go to start winning the real hard-core F/OSS folks back to supporting Windows.
After years of calling it "open sores" and saying open source is a "cancer"
I hate to barge in on the fun here, but after years of calling them "Micro$haft" and "Windoze" and lame outdated jokes about Bob and Clippy, not to mention the massive FUD campaign against Vista, do you really wonder why they'd trust you at all?
You're not going to get rid of Microsoft, much as twitter & co. would want you to believe. So I'd recommend you eye them suspiciously and try to figure out if they're being open and straightforward about what they're doing. A sort of "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" deal.
My personal perception - admittedly a limited view of a slice of the company as viewed from the outside - is that the rank and file are more and more aware of the need to play fair in order to compete effectively. They know that they have some really good software, but they have to justify the costs that go with it. Interoperability is one way to do that, as long as it's in everybody's interest and not just theirs.
I think Microsoft is changing, but it's not going to happen overnight. You can either give it a chance, or continue down the same path. They still own 90% of the desktop, their server market share is growing and either way they're still shoveling money every quarter. They're still the 300lb gorilla, and charging them head on while screaming is not going to work very well.
I hate to barge in on the fun here, but after years of calling them "Micro$haft" and "Windoze" and lame outdated jokes about Bob and Clippy, not to mention the massive FUD campaign against Vista, do you really wonder why they'd trust you at all?
I think the key difference you've failed to recognize is that the people who have done the things you point to aren't trying to get in good with Microsoft, while Microsoft, which has likened Open Source to cancer, is trying to get on the good side of the open source community.
They're still the 300lb gorilla, and charging them head on while screaming is not going to work very well.
A 300lb gorilla is either abnormally small, juvenile, or perhaps a large female. The common term for an a juggernaut that dwarfs all competitors in an area of business is "800lb gorilla".
I hate to barge in on the fun here, but after years of calling them "Micro$haft" and "Windoze" and lame outdated jokes about Bob and Clippy, not to mention the massive FUD campaign against Vista, do you really wonder why they'd trust you at all?
We don't give a rat's ass if Microsoft trusts us. They're trying to infiltrate open source, not the other way around. Your argument is pointless and completely irrational.
So I'd recommend you eye them suspiciously and try to figure out if they're being open and straightforward about what they're doing
WE DON'T TRUST THEM. Is that so hard to understand? We don't believe they're being open and straightforward, why should we? They've never been open and straightforward with anyone ever.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me over and over for twenty years, shame on me. If Microsoft wants our trust they're going to have to earn it.
The one thing that MS has going for it is a complete lack of understanding of "open source" by upper management of many companies. I know that at previous jobs I couldn't even use those two words together without fear of a slap on the hand.
I realize that things are shifting and many companies are already investigating "open source" solutions, however they still weigh the pros and cons of both and still usually go for the business model that they understand the most.
Now that Microsoft is trying to be Open Source friendly, their name is appearing in all kinds of articles with those dreaded words "open source" and therefore all those managers who disreguarded that entire sector of the software industry are now that much more willing to let their IT departments experiment with "open source" solutions. And us IT people who have been waiting to jump the MS ship for years actually have an audience for that great MS replacement solution we have had in our heads.
I predict that this pandering to the Open Source community might signal the downfall for MS. Unless they embrace it completely and bleed "open source", they will never be as good as their "truely open" competitors.
It would be like Coke advertising that it now tastes more like (insert cheap cola maker here)... all of those people who have been drinking Coke because they thought it was better because they knew the name will now try the alternative. If the alternative is truely better, who's gonna drink Coke anymore?
I've recently heard that Microsoft is looking for a Senior Director in the Product Marketing area around their web application development strategy and tools. One of the requirements for this position is a solid understanding of the LAMP stack and development approaches for web applications built on open source software. Presumably the successful candidate will have the task of marketing Microsoft's.Net story against the open source LAMP stack. Microsoft's participation at OSCON and similar events gives them both the opportunity to become part of the open source community, and a better understanding of how they can compete against it.
Here are the plain, simple facts regarding this sudden "change of heart":
1) Microsoft has, up until this point, violently opposed the open-source model, community and underlying morals & ethics that sustain our "ecosystem" as they put it. They have used Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, slander (and lots of PR/marketing money) to make open-source look inferior to their products. Remember, open-source is a "cancer".
2) Microsoft, since the beginning, has outright sabotaged other software companies' software, pushed (against their own customers no less) software onto their customers that only benefits them (WGA, Terminal server licensing server) and causes unjust amounts of headache for the people who purchase said software.
3) Speaking of Terminal Server, just a quick personal note from my recent experience: Microsoft intentionally limited Windows 2000 Server color depth to 256 colors for connecting devices (NT4 did NOT have this limitation). Windows 2003 Server touted features include 'Increased color depth in connecting devices'. This seems an awful lot to me as a conscious effort to cripple one version of their product, to be able to sell more of their next.
4) Microsoft is headed by a guy who got so butt hurt at an honest competitor that he threw a chair and started cursing.
---
The open source community must stand tall against Microsoft. Don't let the easily forgotten past dilute in your current glass of water - Microsoft has absolutely no intention of making an about face. They exist because they want to make MONEY. LOTS of money. And that's not bad, we all need money to survive - but Microsoft doesn't play by the rules. Never has, never will. I say we give them 10 years to prove their intentions (since it took them at least that long to put them in the position with the community in the first place) with the community. After that, maybe we'll feel more comfortable with letting the wolf into the sheep's domain.
The idea that there is this one, monolithic Microsoft that's single-mindedly driven to crush all competition (beginning with open source) is actually pretty much a myth. Within Microsoft there are a lot of different departments, teams, and initiatives. And believe it or not, nobody at the top is in charge of issuing brown shirts and armbands.
A couple of years ago I attended a presentation by some Microsoft folks at LinuxWorld Expo. It was actually by the Windows Embedded team, who wanted to talk about Windows CE, Windows Mobile, and Windows XP Embedded. I guess the perception at the time was that there were a lot of interesting new devices coming to market, and that many of them were considering Linux for their OS. The Microsoft team wanted to get in the word about the Windows option.
Nothing strange there. That's just basic Microsoft competitive (or call it anti-Linux if you want) tactics. What was interesting, though, was that the talk was not held at the LinuxWorld convention center. I was tipped off about it by a girl who was wandering the show floor, handing out flyers. The actual talk was taking place at a pizza parlor across the street. So I went over, told them who I was, had a slice of pizza, and listed to how their new build tools for XP Embedded worked. Everybody was quite nice and cordial, and nobody even bothered to slam Linux.
My point is that, all in all, this was a pretty low-rent, low-impact move on Microsoft's part. If it was part of some evil Gates/Ballmer master plan then it was pretty ham-fisted. Rather, my guess is that the embedded team just felt strongly enough about marketing their product to the LinuxWorld audience that they got together some marketing budget from their own department, bought a few plane tickets for their guys, hired a local babe to distribute the flyers, and did what developers do almost every Friday -- bought pizza.
The iron fist of Ballmer crushing down? The face of evil? Hardly. The Microsoft reps were completely non-confrontational, and I, for one, was happy to hear what they had to say. I suppose I could have sat there and plugged my ear with one finger while singing "la la la la la" between bites of pizza, but then I'd kind of look like the closed-minded one, don't you think?
So if a few guys from the open source department at Microsoft come and give a talk at an open source conference, I hardly see where it's cause for all this alarm. If anything, it should be encouraging. Does it mean Microsoft has "turned over a new leaf," and is going to completely change its business practices to suit what the/. crowd thinks? Obviously not. But I am at least willing to assume that the guy is being honest about what he says. Or do you really believe that he didn't spend any time crafting the speech -- maybe he just sketched it out on a napkin the night before, while drinking absinthe from a harp seal skull with Steve Ballmer?
The idea that there is this one, monolithic Microsoft that's single-mindedly driven to crush all competition (beginning with open source)...
BEGINNING with?
Look - Nobody said anything about M$ being some huge evil monolithic consciousness. I was plainly talking about their (very) public track-record regarding their stance against open-source software. You're trying to show M$ has small-time departments with insightful, honest programmers - I agree 100%. There is no doubt in my mind that Microsoft employs some of the brightest, most motivated and insightful programmers out there.
That doesn't mean that the ones at the top are those kinds of people.
The biggest hurdle between Microsoft and open source is the GPL. Because of how the license is written its very hard for Microsoft to embrace and extend any project written in GPL, especially GPLv3. Even if Microsoft somehow should manage to get the lead developers of some high profile projects away enough people exists that would just fork and ignore them completely.
I expect Microsoft to put much effort into trying to get more projects to use for example the BSD or Apache license instead of the GPL. Some people might but i suspect most peope are smart enough to realize all they are after is another chance at doing a Kerberos on other peoples hard work.
I think the GP is pretty much on the mark. If MS loses the mind-share of the next generation of developers, their software stack will become the outlier, the exception to the rule. This, MS literally cannot afford.
IE is a good case in point. Anyone doing web development follows the pattern of developing first for the standards-compliant browsers then tweaking (and tweaking) for IE. This strategy works even though the "compliant" browsers really aren't that compliant. They're just a whole lot closer to each other than they are to IE, and that's enough. (Maybe IE8 will fix all that. Maybe not. We'll see.)
Nevertheless, one thing to remember is that MS has an exceptional track record of delivering wonderful developer tools. Visual Studio is very impressive. Blend is terrific, and integrates very nicely with Silverlight. The design of.NET is nothing short of inspired. The architecture of the Simplicity OS is very innovative. If MS can get lift-off on their cloud computing tools, I'm sure they will create quite a stir.
In a word, MS really does have the chops to compete.
But if they lose the mind-share of the next generation, if they are perceived as the outlier technology, they're toast. This means their tools are going to have to play nice with data protocols, file formats, and other industry standards. It's reached the level of a business necessity.
MS must interoperate, or die.
Happily, I very much doubt MS will die. I look forward to some true engineering competition from MS. I think they'll push hard on the F/OSS community, and everyone will be better for it.
"....or laughable contempt, depending on how old/jaded you are...."
Yup; very old, very jaded. I was bossing mainframes when little Billy Gates was still sleeping on computer room floors, and I have yet to see anyone who didn't eventually get stabbed in the back by little Billy and his pack of thugs.
Just wait for it. They've always gotten away with it, so there's no reason for that pack of rats to change their ways now.
All together now: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Extinguish [flickr.com]
Re:All together now: (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:All together now: (Score:5, Informative)
Embrace, Extend....
No doubt that approach remains dominant, but it's too simplistic. The article seems to conclude that Microsoft is after hearts and minds, developers, specifically, but anyone else within earshot would help just the same.
That would make the latest developments more akin to Walmart's "our valued associates" commercials, oil companies touting "green" initiatives, US car makers promising economic turnarounds with concept cars, or, if you're so inclined, presidential political political strategies that ranged from compassionate conservatism, to "restoring honor", to the latest "I'm Different (honest!)" by McCain.
Parent
Re:All together now: (Score:5, Interesting)
No doubt that approach remains dominant, but it's too simplistic. The article seems to conclude that Microsoft is after hearts and minds, developers, specifically, but anyone else within earshot would help just the same. That would make the latest developments more akin to Walmart's "our valued associates" commercials, oil companies touting "green" initiatives, US car makers promising economic turnarounds with concept cars, or, if you're so inclined, presidential political political strategies that ranged from compassionate conservatism, to "restoring honor", to the latest "I'm Different (honest!)" by McCain.
Right. That's step 1, "Embrace". I'm interested to see what "Extend" is in this context. Possibly a new open source license? They've made steps down that road, but not seriously.
Parent
Re:All together now: (Score:4, Interesting)
Right. That's step 1, "Embrace". I'm interested to see what "Extend" is in this context. Possibly a new open source license? They've made steps down that road, but not seriously.
As a college student nearing graduation (and thus target to a barrage of recruitment efforts), I don't really think MS is specifically after the classic "3E" method here.
What MS realizes right now is that their company is staffed by a lot of career types - people who want to clock their hours, get their paychecks, and spend time with their family. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but they've also seen the effect of Google - a company full of people who would be willing to throw in insane hours and effort to get a cool, hip product out the door. Given MS's current obsession with *being like Google*, I suspect they want their share of the hip, dedicated, insanely motivated developer base... aka open source devs.
My school is very pro-open-source (what college isn't?), and recently MS has been sending more and more "open source evangelist" types to recruitment talks. The whole point is to convince people to join MS, because they're no longer evil, and are now doing cool open source, innovative projects!
Parent
Re:All together now: (Score:5, Insightful)
My school is very pro-open-source (what college isn't?), and recently MS has been sending more and more "open source evangelist" types to recruitment talks. The whole point is to convince people to join MS, because they're no longer evil, and are now doing cool open source, innovative projects!
Oh, to be sure, they like that. But that's only part of it. This is much bigger than just hiring entry-level devs - this is about combating the toehold open source has in the business market. They see how Google is propping up the Mozilla foundation and Sun OpenOffice to combat MS, and they'd like to turn the tables.
I could see them doing a lot of things. I could see them funding a few initiatives that compete against rivals where it makes sense. I can also see them trying to wheedle themselves in so they can attempt to splinter the community. And history has shown the best way to do that is with the one thing MS has a lot of: money.
MS has gotten where it has by being ruthless. I don't see that changing, and to think otherwise might be a little naive. Money and incompatible licensing is the best way to fracture the community. If I were MS, that's what I'd try.
Parent
Re:All together now: (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:All together now: (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft cannot extinguish a methodology no matter how much they want to. Sure, they can manipulate the governing systems, they can sue people for "patent infringement" and other garbage, but at the end of the day, open source will continue to proceed unabated.
Really? It seems like it would be difficult, but taking out Linux would be the same as winning an election. You just have to introduce a new feature that's so spectacular, that over 50% of the user base will sacrifice the fact that it's not open source to have it. They will give it away, for free, as in beer. They will now have divided the user base and continue to do so until Linux has forked so many times it's unusable.
Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish has a lot in common with another tactic. [wikipedia.org]
Beware of forks! You have been warned.
Parent
Re:All together now: (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:All together now: (Score:5, Insightful)
I am lost. Just what is Microsoft supposed to do to make people who use (F)OSS happy?
Open up their protocols/file formats so that non-Microsoft tools can interact with them. Otherwise, I really don't care. They've made too many mistakes in the past (Outlook, ActiveX, auto-executing document macros/email attachments/media) for me to ever trust them with anything important.
I like Unix and the Unix shell. I like KDE. I like the way X11 networks. For any system that I rely on, I must have source code that I can fix and recompile. I see no reason to ever switch. One size does not fit all, and I'm O.K. with that.
Parent
Re:All together now: (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not through evil hocus-pocus that everyone uses the non-standards complaint features.
*cough*Internet Explorer*cough
Parent
I for one welcome ... (Score:5, Funny)
... nah. No I don't.
This should be obvious... (Score:4, Funny)
Star Trek quote... (Score:5, Insightful)
[on whether to help the Klingons]
Captain James T. Kirk: They're animals.
Captain Spock: Jim, there is an historic opportunity here.
Captain James T. Kirk: Don't believe them. Don't trust them.
Captain Spock: They're dying.
Captain James T. Kirk: Let them die!
[pauses... Spock cocks his head in surprise.
Honestly, folks, what makes you think any Klingons, err, microsofties can be trusted in this day and age?
or maybe this is closer to home:
Steve Jobs (from Pirates of Silly Valley): "Dead culture in a crumbling castle"...
They're just saying "nice doggy" until they can find a rock. Maybe this is what the teachers meant when they said: "Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it".
Or how many times do you insist on touching that hot stove? Really. They need us more than we need them. Ignore them, move along, nothing to see...
Parent
Re:This should be obvious... (Score:5, Insightful)
Listen, I hate to break this to you and *every damn person* (nothing personal, you're far from the only one) that thinks the mere mention of chairs whenever the topic of Steve Ballmer- or even just MS- comes up is funny... it's not.
Yes it is.
Secondly, most of the "jokes" aren't; they just mention chairs.
Which is all that's needed to rekindle the fire that apparently got Ballmer's ass so hot he had to throw it.
This shouldn't be mistaken for true group-shared humour. Whether it's funny is irrelevant. People don't even bother making true jokes about it any more, they just mention chairs as a shortcut. It's canned humour... it's cargo cult humour, because most of those jokes have lost sight of what was meant to be funny in the first place. They just go through the motions of mentioning Ballmer on the assumption that it's "funny".
Actually, something that's "funny" is based purely on individual perception. Given that most people around SD *still*, after 3 years, mention the Olympic event of chair-throwing (ha ha!), they still find humorous value in it. You can't tell someone that something isn't funny if they think it is. That's like telling someone "You don't like cheese." If they actually do like cheese, you're just trying to tell them what they like. Which is exactly what you're trying to do in your comment.
Do we actually think it's funny any more? Do we actually think that others find it funny any more? Or do we just all know that everyone else has implicitly agreed that this topic is considered funny?
Yes, yes, and no. Again, something is funny to someone when they think it's funny. Obviously, a LOT of people think that a balding, fat billionaire throwing a chair and screaming like a toddler because someone left their company for another, more honest and progressive company...well sh*t yeah, that's funny as hell!! Hahahahahaha!
Parent
Re:This should be obvious... (Score:5, Funny)
I'd say the joke served its purpose here. Got an MS fanboy to blow his cover and raised his blood pressure to boot.
If you are a fangirl instead, it still applies. If you are a fanvampire, sorry for the blood pressure joke.
Parent
Re:This should be obvious... (Score:4, Insightful)
Curious she asks her guard escort the story behind the numbers and laughter. The guard tells her, "these guys have been here so long they don't even bother with the jokes anymore. They just yell out the number and everyone laughs because they know the punchline."
Amazed, she watches a while longer. Another inmate stands up and yells, "13!" but gets no response.
The guard casually says, "old Sammy. He never could tell a joke."
"Chairs!"
Parent
MS cannot be trusted (Score:5, Informative)
--Steve Balmer
Re:MS cannot be trusted (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:MS cannot be trusted (Score:5, Insightful)
"Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches." - Steve Balmer
eh? no no no...
"Microsoft is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches."
yep. sounds about right.
Parent
Re:MS cannot be trusted (Score:5, Interesting)
You may want to rephrase that slightly:
Don't forget, they CAN help Apache by making IIS even crappier...
Parent
I think you mean PDF (Score:5, Informative)
*IF* MS wanted to be open source friendly, things like OOXML would just vanish
So, to be friendly to open source, they should get rid of the only open document format that can handle billions of legacy documents without losing fidelity???
Grandparent said OOXML not PDF.
Parent
Re:MS cannot be trusted (Score:4, Insightful)
Nah, they need not go that far. Just OPEN SOURCING a valid reference implementation would be okay.
Hell, HAVING a reference implementation AT ALL wouldnt hurt either!
And while we are on our wishlist, they should start transitioning from ooxml to odf, because that would be FRIENDLY to opensource instead of just yapping.
And then youre also quite ignorant: ooxml looses fidelity and office 2007 cant even open office 2000 files...
Man... who the hell do you think youre talking about?
Parent
Re:MS cannot be trusted (Score:4, Insightful)
Context my ass. He called it a cancer, and that word has distinct connotations. If he had not intended those connotations, he has had plenty of time to apologize or correct the record. That he hasn't done so speaks volumes.
Stop making excuses for idiots.
Parent
MS Open Source is a Web Fallback (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft's biggest problem isn't Google, it is that everyone is writing for a platform that is vendor neutral. It's extraordinarily difficult to find a business client that wants a client program - they want everything on the web whether it is stupid or not, and that's what has MS really worried. Google has failed in web apps fairly well, besides search, so they aren't the threat. What is the threat is that no one is really writing any sort of new applications for Windows SDK, .NET, etc. Open source people are at least interested in desktop applications development or PC applications development for Linux, and so, this could be part of a larger effort to at least get their stuff on Windows. Ultimately, Microsoft would rather have Windows running Linux applications on it desktop, then to have no desktop at all!
Re:MS Open Source is a Web Fallback (Score:5, Interesting)
-
Google needs to release its web office applications as a server that can be installed in a corporate datacenter. That would allow corporations to maintain full and auditable control over their data, while leaving the high cost of MS Office behind.
Parent
Re:MS Open Source is a Web Fallback (Score:5, Insightful)
that goes against google's core principle of hoarding as much data as possible
Parent
Re:MS Open Source is a Web Fallback (Score:5, Informative)
that goes against google's core principle of hoarding as much data as possible
Google sells a server you can drop in to index your internal corporate network, dropping in a similar apps server doesn't seem any different from a 'data hoarding' perspective.
Parent
Re:MS Open Source is a Web Fallback (Score:5, Interesting)
Once I saw the Google search appliance in action, I started to wonder about Google's business. Sure - they're making money with advertising. But I also wonder if all these beta web apps aren't just proving grounds / test beds for enterprise services. What better way to test out your tech than ask the public to throw every conceivable (and even unimagined) kind of data at it and see how it works (as well as watch how they're making their data and your system work for them).
Parent
enemies close (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:enemies close (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardware vendors? If it weren't for Vista, how many average consumers would want 3GB ram?
Parent
Re:enemies close (Score:4, Funny)
Wow, you're right! [slashdot.org] But they have a few freaks [slashdot.org]. And five fans.
Parent
Luring developers back (Score:5, Interesting)
The argument that Willis makes about MS wanting to lure F/OSS developers back is quite accurate. I just wonder how much MS's past behaviors will hurt them in this endeavor. Many people, especially those closely aligned with projects like Apache, Open Office, etc. are well aware of MS's historic practice of "embrase, extend, extinguish" so they're likely to be very cautious about any olive branches that they offer. I wonder if this well documented behavior of MS's is likely to doom such tactics to failure in the long run. As the next generation of programmers gets their feet wet they'll likely read & hear about all the trouble MS has caused, and see growing number of F/OSS projects. My guess is that many of them will likely deduce for themselves that sticking with F/OSS as much as possible is the preferred track to go and that they shouldn't trust MS themselves like those before them. Perhaps some folks within MS have also realized this and that's why they're starting to "cozy up" to F/OSS. They likely realize they've got a LONG way to go to start winning the real hard-core F/OSS folks back to supporting Windows.
yeah right... (Score:5, Informative)
working desperately to change public opinion of Microsoft's involvement in the open source community
After years of calling it "open sores" and saying open source is a "cancer", I'd say they have their work cut out for them.
Do they really wonder why open source people don't trust them?
Re:yeah right... (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to barge in on the fun here, but after years of calling them "Micro$haft" and "Windoze" and lame outdated jokes about Bob and Clippy, not to mention the massive FUD campaign against Vista, do you really wonder why they'd trust you at all?
You're not going to get rid of Microsoft, much as twitter & co. would want you to believe. So I'd recommend you eye them suspiciously and try to figure out if they're being open and straightforward about what they're doing. A sort of "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" deal.
My personal perception - admittedly a limited view of a slice of the company as viewed from the outside - is that the rank and file are more and more aware of the need to play fair in order to compete effectively. They know that they have some really good software, but they have to justify the costs that go with it. Interoperability is one way to do that, as long as it's in everybody's interest and not just theirs.
I think Microsoft is changing, but it's not going to happen overnight. You can either give it a chance, or continue down the same path. They still own 90% of the desktop, their server market share is growing and either way they're still shoveling money every quarter. They're still the 300lb gorilla, and charging them head on while screaming is not going to work very well.
Parent
Re:yeah right... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the key difference you've failed to recognize is that the people who have done the things you point to aren't trying to get in good with Microsoft, while Microsoft, which has likened Open Source to cancer, is trying to get on the good side of the open source community.
A 300lb gorilla is either abnormally small, juvenile, or perhaps a large female. The common term for an a juggernaut that dwarfs all competitors in an area of business is "800lb gorilla".
Parent
Re:yeah right... (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate to barge in on the fun here, but after years of calling them "Micro$haft" and "Windoze" and lame outdated jokes about Bob and Clippy, not to mention the massive FUD campaign against Vista, do you really wonder why they'd trust you at all?
We don't give a rat's ass if Microsoft trusts us. They're trying to infiltrate open source, not the other way around. Your argument is pointless and completely irrational.
So I'd recommend you eye them suspiciously and try to figure out if they're being open and straightforward about what they're doing
WE DON'T TRUST THEM. Is that so hard to understand? We don't believe they're being open and straightforward, why should we? They've never been open and straightforward with anyone ever.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me over and over for twenty years, shame on me. If Microsoft wants our trust they're going to have to earn it.
Parent
Cashing the GNU (Score:5, Interesting)
What about this crazy idea:
Yeah, there even doesn't have to be a "???" step.
Re:Cashing the GNU (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sorry, but Foobar [foobar2000.org] is not open source.
Parent
Anybody else think this might backfire for MS? (Score:5, Interesting)
The one thing that MS has going for it is a complete lack of understanding of "open source" by upper management of many companies. I know that at previous jobs I couldn't even use those two words together without fear of a slap on the hand.
I realize that things are shifting and many companies are already investigating "open source" solutions, however they still weigh the pros and cons of both and still usually go for the business model that they understand the most.
Now that Microsoft is trying to be Open Source friendly, their name is appearing in all kinds of articles with those dreaded words "open source" and therefore all those managers who disreguarded that entire sector of the software industry are now that much more willing to let their IT departments experiment with "open source" solutions. And us IT people who have been waiting to jump the MS ship for years actually have an audience for that great MS replacement solution we have had in our heads.
I predict that this pandering to the Open Source community might signal the downfall for MS. Unless they embrace it completely and bleed "open source", they will never be as good as their "truely open" competitors.
It would be like Coke advertising that it now tastes more like (insert cheap cola maker here)... all of those people who have been drinking Coke because they thought it was better because they knew the name will now try the alternative. If the alternative is truely better, who's gonna drink Coke anymore?
MSFT adding staff to compete against open source (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's the deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here are the plain, simple facts regarding this sudden "change of heart":
1) Microsoft has, up until this point, violently opposed the open-source model, community and underlying morals & ethics that sustain our "ecosystem" as they put it. They have used Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt, slander (and lots of PR/marketing money) to make open-source look inferior to their products. Remember, open-source is a "cancer".
2) Microsoft, since the beginning, has outright sabotaged other software companies' software, pushed (against their own customers no less) software onto their customers that only benefits them (WGA, Terminal server licensing server) and causes unjust amounts of headache for the people who purchase said software.
3) Speaking of Terminal Server, just a quick personal note from my recent experience: Microsoft intentionally limited Windows 2000 Server color depth to 256 colors for connecting devices (NT4 did NOT have this limitation). Windows 2003 Server touted features include 'Increased color depth in connecting devices'. This seems an awful lot to me as a conscious effort to cripple one version of their product, to be able to sell more of their next.
4) Microsoft is headed by a guy who got so butt hurt at an honest competitor that he threw a chair and started cursing.
---
The open source community must stand tall against Microsoft. Don't let the easily forgotten past dilute in your current glass of water - Microsoft has absolutely no intention of making an about face. They exist because they want to make MONEY. LOTS of money. And that's not bad, we all need money to survive - but Microsoft doesn't play by the rules. Never has, never will. I say we give them 10 years to prove their intentions (since it took them at least that long to put them in the position with the community in the first place) with the community. After that, maybe we'll feel more comfortable with letting the wolf into the sheep's domain.
I wouldn't go totally crazy about this. (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea that there is this one, monolithic Microsoft that's single-mindedly driven to crush all competition (beginning with open source) is actually pretty much a myth. Within Microsoft there are a lot of different departments, teams, and initiatives. And believe it or not, nobody at the top is in charge of issuing brown shirts and armbands.
A couple of years ago I attended a presentation by some Microsoft folks at LinuxWorld Expo. It was actually by the Windows Embedded team, who wanted to talk about Windows CE, Windows Mobile, and Windows XP Embedded. I guess the perception at the time was that there were a lot of interesting new devices coming to market, and that many of them were considering Linux for their OS. The Microsoft team wanted to get in the word about the Windows option.
Nothing strange there. That's just basic Microsoft competitive (or call it anti-Linux if you want) tactics. What was interesting, though, was that the talk was not held at the LinuxWorld convention center. I was tipped off about it by a girl who was wandering the show floor, handing out flyers. The actual talk was taking place at a pizza parlor across the street. So I went over, told them who I was, had a slice of pizza, and listed to how their new build tools for XP Embedded worked. Everybody was quite nice and cordial, and nobody even bothered to slam Linux.
My point is that, all in all, this was a pretty low-rent, low-impact move on Microsoft's part. If it was part of some evil Gates/Ballmer master plan then it was pretty ham-fisted. Rather, my guess is that the embedded team just felt strongly enough about marketing their product to the LinuxWorld audience that they got together some marketing budget from their own department, bought a few plane tickets for their guys, hired a local babe to distribute the flyers, and did what developers do almost every Friday -- bought pizza.
The iron fist of Ballmer crushing down? The face of evil? Hardly. The Microsoft reps were completely non-confrontational, and I, for one, was happy to hear what they had to say. I suppose I could have sat there and plugged my ear with one finger while singing "la la la la la" between bites of pizza, but then I'd kind of look like the closed-minded one, don't you think?
So if a few guys from the open source department at Microsoft come and give a talk at an open source conference, I hardly see where it's cause for all this alarm. If anything, it should be encouraging. Does it mean Microsoft has "turned over a new leaf," and is going to completely change its business practices to suit what the /. crowd thinks? Obviously not. But I am at least willing to assume that the guy is being honest about what he says. Or do you really believe that he didn't spend any time crafting the speech -- maybe he just sketched it out on a napkin the night before, while drinking absinthe from a harp seal skull with Steve Ballmer?
Parent
Re:I wouldn't go totally crazy about this. (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea that there is this one, monolithic Microsoft that's single-mindedly driven to crush all competition (beginning with open source)...
BEGINNING with?
Look - Nobody said anything about M$ being some huge evil monolithic consciousness. I was plainly talking about their (very) public track-record regarding their stance against open-source software. You're trying to show M$ has small-time departments with insightful, honest programmers - I agree 100%. There is no doubt in my mind that Microsoft employs some of the brightest, most motivated and insightful programmers out there.
That doesn't mean that the ones at the top are those kinds of people.
Parent
lolcrosoft (Score:5, Funny)
Im in ur OSCONs, stealin ur develpurs! DEVELPURS! DEVELPURS!
Microsofts biggest threat is the GPL, not OSS. (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest hurdle between Microsoft and open source is the GPL. Because of how the license is written its very hard for Microsoft to embrace and extend any project written in GPL, especially GPLv3. Even if Microsoft somehow should manage to get the lead developers of some high profile projects away enough people exists that would just fork and ignore them completely.
I expect Microsoft to put much effort into trying to get more projects to use for example the BSD or Apache license instead of the GPL. Some people might but i suspect most peope are smart enough to realize all they are after is another chance at doing a Kerberos on other peoples hard work.
MS cannot afford to be the "outlier" (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the GP is pretty much on the mark. If MS loses the mind-share of the next generation of developers, their software stack will become the outlier, the exception to the rule. This, MS literally cannot afford.
IE is a good case in point. Anyone doing web development follows the pattern of developing first for the standards-compliant browsers then tweaking (and tweaking) for IE. This strategy works even though the "compliant" browsers really aren't that compliant. They're just a whole lot closer to each other than they are to IE, and that's enough. (Maybe IE8 will fix all that. Maybe not. We'll see.)
Nevertheless, one thing to remember is that MS has an exceptional track record of delivering wonderful developer tools. Visual Studio is very impressive. Blend is terrific, and integrates very nicely with Silverlight. The design of .NET is nothing short of inspired. The architecture of the Simplicity OS is very innovative. If MS can get lift-off on their cloud computing tools, I'm sure they will create quite a stir.
In a word, MS really does have the chops to compete.
But if they lose the mind-share of the next generation, if they are perceived as the outlier technology, they're toast. This means their tools are going to have to play nice with data protocols, file formats, and other industry standards. It's reached the level of a business necessity.
MS must interoperate, or die.
Happily, I very much doubt MS will die. I look forward to some true engineering competition from MS. I think they'll push hard on the F/OSS community, and everyone will be better for it.
Game on, MS!
Laugable contempt, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
"....or laughable contempt, depending on how old/jaded you are...."
Yup; very old, very jaded. I was bossing mainframes when little Billy Gates was still sleeping on computer room floors, and I have yet to see anyone who didn't eventually get stabbed in the back by little Billy and his pack of thugs.
Just wait for it. They've always gotten away with it, so there's no reason for that pack of rats to change their ways now.
Re:Google? (Score:4, Informative)
http://code.google.com/hosting/projects.html [google.com]
Riiiight.
Parent