Why Microsoft Cozied up to Open Source at OSCON 325
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).
All together now: (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:enemies close (Score:3, Insightful)
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
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I hate to barge in on the fun here, but after years of calling them "Micro$haft" and "Windoze" and lame outdated jokes about Bob and Clippy, not to mention the massive FUD campaign against Vista, do you really wonder why they'd trust you at all?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.
Re:All together now: (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
Re:MS cannot be trusted (Score:2, Insightful)
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???
Sure. Bonus points for opening the legacy format so everybody can write converters.
If Microsoft -HAS- seen the light.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wake me when this happens.
[Snoring Begins]
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!
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...
Re:All together now: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, if the gamers are pirating windows, then that's a different story, and they have no right to complain about Microsoft's ethics.
Phil
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?
Re:All together now: (Score:3, Insightful)
And then the rest of us gamers either purchase games that work on Linux (I buy most id Software games, even if they aren't that great, simply because they support Linux natively. Same with the UT games.), or buy a console. I love my Wii.
I hear the talking, I don't see the walking (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft has been making some big noises. When they start releasing some real open source software, that runs on something other than windows, maybe I will stop laughing hysterically. Until then, it is all noise. In addition, due to their prior behavior, they are going to have a much higher barrier to go over than their competition.
Sorry kids, you made your bed, you get to sleep in it.
Re:Big Deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Depends on what you mean by "Open Source". If everything microsoft does goes Free Software (a real FOSS license that protects the six freedoms), its free, forever.
Yes, they will still make a buck: GOOD! If we only managed to convince them of that.....
Sigh
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.
Re:MS cannot be trusted (Score:3, Insightful)
*dons flameproof suit*
I use linux, I like the idea of OSS, and I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but I do try to give everybody a fair shake. As far as I can tell, this is essentially one word removed from things that other open source advocates say themselves. Swap out "Linux" with "GPL" and you're about a half step away from "the GPL is viral." Right or wrong (and I'm not trying to start a philosophical OSS license debate.)
Is his quote too simplistic? Yes. Strongly worded to appear to put Microsoft on the "right" side? Yup. Was it intentional, or just a bastardization of the quote above that might happen when somebody tries to speak too intimately about things he doesn't really have much information on? Hard to tell.
Regardless, that's also his job. He's not a programmer, nor is it likely that he's even particularly involved in the day-to-day stewardship of the company. He's basically a glorified salesman, and his clients are stockholders and potential stockholders. He's giving you one reason that, in his mind, what you can get from Microsoft is better than an open source alternative.
Distrust them on past actions if you wish, but trotting out this tired quote like it proves anything at all is ridiculous at best.
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!
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?
Re:Big Deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think it's part of some master plan, so much as part of being a large technology company in this day and age.
Re:All together now: (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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.
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!"
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:All together now: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Cashing the GNU (Score:3, Insightful)
Since your subject line was "Cashing the GNU", if they didn't release the changes as open source, they'd be breaking the terms of the GNU project's General Public License, which requires source code for changes to be released whenever the modified original code is redistributed.
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
Re:yeah right... (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is that I don't owe Microsoft anything. They are trying to win back _my_ favor and _my_ custom. I don't care what they think of me. They should care, however, about what I think of them, because I'm one of their customers that they have lost.
Microsoft has everything to win and I have nothing to lose in this relationship. I'm very happy using open software and frankly I can't imagine a scenario where Microsoft could win back my trust, even one involving a public firing and condemnation of Ballmer and everything he stands for (although that would be a good start). I also can't imagine Microsoft making a product I would want or prefer to what I have now. They haven't done anything in many years that isn't completely unsuitable to my needs. I liked XP. Heck I _still_ like XP. But they killed XP and replaced it with something that I do not like and refuse to use. I don't owe them anything, but if they want my future business, they owe me a lot.
You don't seem to understand how the vendor/customer thing works.
Re:All together now: (Score:2, Insightful)
Novel, Sony, Netscape, IBM, Sun, Oracle, ... it seems a lot of big names in Linux wound up there as a (partial) result of dealing with Microsoft. It seems to me that if Microsoft wants to contribute to open source without drawing more blood, they ought to offer a service to the FOSS *industry*.
Of course, this falls back under the well known mantra of Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish.
Embrace, extend and extinguish,"[1] also known as "Embrace, extend, and exterminate,"[2] is a phrase that the U.S. Department of Justice alleged[3] was used internally by Microsoft[4] to describe their strategy for entering product categories involving widely used standards, extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences to disadvantage its competitors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish [wikipedia.org]
Basically, nothing Microsoft has done with FOSS has been inconsistant with this strategy. A service that does not significantly affect current FOSS standards (documented as well as unwritten), might work. I guess they could release their own code, accept user feedback, and audit the services required. Of course it's nice if their code is cross-platform, which is also semi-consistant with their current strategy. Then again, Microsoft hasn't released much more than code that extends the typical FOSS stack.
Then they go on marketing tirades claiming FOSS is a cancer, later declaring they want cancer.
i just don't know which way to go.
Re:enemies close (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
And so the fable ends... (Score:3, Insightful)
"I'm a scorpion; it's my nature."
Microsoft doesn't share, ever. They exchange, acquire, barter, steal, strategically release, but under no circumstances do they share. Nothing goes out of the company without a bean counter being able to draw a direct map of how the outflow will lead to a corresponding influx. If you have something of value to Microsoft, they will examine scenarios in which they get what you have in exchange for something they have. If you have nothing of value to Microsoft, you get nothing. It's not sharing if there's always an angle, that's bargaining.
Sharing is a human behavior. Microsoft is not human. It's a corporate entity whose mentality is closer to a reptile or shark. It is to our great detriment that we anthropomorphize them. Sometimes they exhibit behaviors which seem to mimic the emotions we are accustomed to: fear, sadness, joy, remorse... but when it comes down to it, they feel nothing, it's just another feeding strategy. Reptiles don't smile, their mouths are just curved sometimes.
We must always remember, corporations are more vicious than a shark. Unlike a mindless predator, they actually know we anthropomorphize them and they use that too as a weapon against us. The problem we have when dealing with corporations is that, as people, we have a tendency to believe other people have the same altruistic intentions we have. And the worst part is, the corporate agents you meet at these gatherings DO have altruistic intentions. They're not in on the plan, they're just corporate agents who are fulfilling their duty and their only duty is to earn your trust. It's the corporate agents you don't meet who are assigned to violate your trust, and they have no problem doing it because they've never even met you, they didn't shake your hand, they didn't have a beer with you. But the corporation operates as a single entity. The hands which embrace you don't know they're holding you in place for the mouth to bite, so the hands may even genuinely like you.
The corporation is counting on the fact that you think the agents walking around OSCON are normal people just like everyone else. Don't be fooled.
It's called Interix. (Score:3, Insightful)
Rather than just say "here is some extra code and ifdefs so it runs on Windows" is make changes to Windows so "your Linux code compiles without changes". Now let's ignore X, which is a mess, and I can't blame them for not emulating that. But they need to provide a working, default, POSIX-like environment.
You mean "they should ship Interix with Windows by default"?
Absolutely. That's the biggest thing they could do to turn around the view of Microsoft. The fact that they won't do it is continuing proof that no matter what they say it's all vapor.