Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Software Linux

Microsoft Wants Sit-Down With OSS Advocates 553

bonch writes "Microsoft is reaching out to the OSS community and wanting a sit-down to discuss how to better to interoperate with them. At a conference sponsored by the Association for Competitive Technology (ACT) in Cambridge, Md., Microsoft's Brad Smith extended an olive branch to its competitors, including the OSS community. 'We're going to have to figure out how to build some bridges between the various parts of our industry,' he said. Eric Raymond responds, saying the first steps Microsoft could do are to open their file formats and support open standards."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Wants Sit-Down With OSS Advocates

Comments Filter:
  • by winkydink ( 650484 ) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Friday April 29, 2005 @06:30PM (#12388945) Homepage Journal
    didn't he have strategy where he got everybody into one room, then barred the doors and... :)
    • Rumours say he moved from Transylvania to Redmond.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29, 2005 @07:58PM (#12389525)
        All the Slasdot stories about Microsoft have been very interesting lately, both in their number and in the content of the following posts. First, Longhorn is a no-show--a real honest to goodness flop. It's like Windows XP Plus. Second, someone at Microsoft blew it big time on their earnings projection. They probably have the best accountants and economists in the industry, and they made a mistake. The first time in a long time (ever?) they missed their earnings goal.

        So why all the publicity? Their stock is flat, their earnings are no longer in double-digit growth, their future OS is thoroughly unimpressive, their Office suite is prohibitively expensive, they have no diversification that can support their profit margins in the long-term, they are the last to endorse OSS for commodity products, their competitors are innovating like mad, and what does Microsoft have to show for it? Publicity. Keep their name out there while they scramble to stay relevant.

        I think Microsoft is in trouble, and they are desparately seeking ways to stay in business for a decade more while their competitors eat their lunch. Unfortunately, there just is no way that Microsoft can compete with IBM and Sun in their current form. Microsoft is too dependent on revenue from proprietary software to continue without complete reform of the company, which includes no longer being the largest software company in the world. I expect to see a period of significant negative growth for them some time in the years ahead.

        • by Golias ( 176380 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @10:34PM (#12390259)
          I think Microsoft is in trouble, and they are desparately seeking ways to stay in business for a decade more while their competitors eat their lunch.

          Yes, but does Netcraft confirm it?
        • by toddbu ( 748790 ) on Saturday April 30, 2005 @01:29AM (#12390807)
          Microsoft is too dependent on revenue from proprietary software to continue without complete reform of the company

          Microsoft's problem isn't proprietary software, but rather shrink-wrapped software. There's tons of room for proprietary software in the real world (as far as I know, /. isn't open source) and there are lots of people still making money off of it. The ASP model says that it's not the software that's important, but the service that goes along with it. Ever wonder why IBM is throwing its weight behind Linux? They never made a lot of money selling OS/2, and probably even lost some money on it, but they did make money servicing it after the fact. Kind of like printers - sell the printer at cost and then sell ink cartridges at a big markup. Retailers understand the concept of "loss leader". It's better for IBM to throw a few bucks into Linux and sell support on the back end. The problem is that Microsoft just doesn't get this concept because it's never made any real money off of service. Try looking for service revenues on their yearly reports. It's a real hard number to find, and it's very, very small relative to product revenues.

    • by jd ( 1658 ) <`imipak' `at' `yahoo.com'> on Friday April 29, 2005 @06:33PM (#12388971) Homepage Journal
      H wasn't the only one. There were numerous massacres in Scotland, where one clan would invite another round for a feast, but forgot to mention the bit about not leaving afterwards.


      At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, there was an incident involving Chamberlin, Stalin and a few other dignitories in the 1930s...

    • It's their head lawyer (clue the sharks with lasers comments) - which is in itself quite scary - think about what he does all day and why he might care - I suggest we send a couple of IBMs 'Nazagul' along just make sure we know what's really up
    • I'm thinking the first scene from Braveheart, myself.
    • "Thank you all for wearing your ID cards. They'll help to identify the bodies!"
    • by kbahey ( 102895 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @11:56PM (#12390529) Homepage

      A repeatable theme in history.

      A new founder of a dynasty will eliminate rivals from previous dynasties, so no throne claimant will emerge.

      One way of doing this, was to have a banquet, then no one leaves alive.

      One such occurance was Mehmet Ali Pasha of Egypt. He was sent by the Ottoman Sultan to Egypt (1805?), after the French Expedition there (1799?). He invited all the Mameluke commanders to a banquet, and then when they were in a passage, soldiers in muskets showered them with bullets. Only one Mameluke survived, after he jumped off the Citadel, his horse taking the shock.

      Also, when the Abbasid dynasty replaced the Umayyad dynasty in the early 700, Al Saffah (The Butcher), invited the dignitaries from the Umayyad clan to a banquet, and had them massacred. All who attended were killed. One scion of the Banu Umayya survived, after swimming across a river somewhere in the Levant. He fled to Iberia and established the Umayyad dynasty there.

      One other custom was for Ottoman sultans to have their brothers killed as the first act of succession to the throne. This fratricide was to ensure no rivalry will ensue as claimants to the throne would threaten civil war. This system was established after bitter civil wars caused ruin. One such war was between Bayazid II and Cem (late 1400s), both sons of Mehmet the Conqueror.

      Anyway, I digressed a lot. I am sure there are lots of other examples, but off the top of my head, the above are the ones that I remember offhand.

  • by markana ( 152984 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @06:30PM (#12388949)
    They just want to get all the OSS leaders together in one room, then.....

    (oh wait, that was Dr. Who this week. Never mind....)
    • by Neil Blender ( 555885 ) <neilblender@gmail.com> on Friday April 29, 2005 @06:34PM (#12388987)
      Send Stallman, Perens and Raymond. They can have them.
      • by JoshRosenbaum ( 841551 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @07:10PM (#12389244) Homepage
        I say we send in the Rock! Imagine the evil henchman thinking they have the open source geeks all together and go into beat the living hell out of them. Then the Rock comes out of nowhere and pummels them! **CAN YOU SMELLL.....* Then after that, he saves the sorceress princess and lives as ruler of the might empire of Microsoft. It's brilliant I tell ya!

        Sorry, it's been a long day. ;)
      • Re:It's a trap!!!! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by caluml ( 551744 ) <slashdotNO@SPAMspamgoeshere.calum.org> on Friday April 29, 2005 @07:27PM (#12389355) Homepage
        Perens, no. He's cool. Stallman has his head screwed on, but rubs people up the wrong way. Raymond - I have no comment.
      • by crazyphilman ( 609923 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @10:49PM (#12390318) Journal
        No, no, no. You left out some steps!

        1. Tell Stallman that Microsoft has bought the company that does all of the FSF's web hosting, and that the paper Stallman signed that morning wasn't actually a legal form related to his latest fight, but a contract signing over all his projects to Bill Gates. Before he can explode, tell him that Bill wants to seal the deal with a handshake in person at this address...

        2. While Stallman is driving to the meeting at Mach 4 with a chainsaw, a ball-peen hammer, and a skinning knife, tell the other two guys that Stallman is going to meet with Bill Gates and sell the FSF to him, along with the rights to the phrases "Free Software", "Open Source", and "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" (which is going to be made into an X-Box fighting game). Ask them if they're just going to let that happen, or if they're going to head him off and deal with the Microsoft swine that talked him into it.

        3. Sneak to the meeting location and watch through the window. My money's on Mr. Stallman; he looks pretty cagey. I bet he wipes out the whole Microsoft contingent before the others get off the expressway...

    • Leaders??? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by EmbeddedJanitor ( 597831 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @07:36PM (#12389397)
      What are these leader things? What makes OSS strong is the lack of a formal leadership. Nobody has a mandate to speak for anyone else.

      Microsoft cannot get the OSS community to agree to anything. They can't say: "Do xxx we have a signed agreement from your CEO".

      Even Linus can only speak for 10% or so of the Linux code base.

  • by yagu ( 721525 ) <yayaguNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday April 29, 2005 @06:31PM (#12388952) Journal

    In a related headline,
    Lucy promises to hold football with finger, Charlie Brown to kick.

  • by suso ( 153703 ) * on Friday April 29, 2005 @06:31PM (#12388959) Journal
    ITS A TRAP!
    • by DoctoRoR ( 865873 ) * on Friday April 29, 2005 @07:57PM (#12389520) Homepage

      It goes a little like this...

      Brad Smith: The king desires peace.

      Eric Raymond: Longshanks.. er.. Gates desires peace?

      Brad Smith: He declares it to me, I swear it. He proposes that you withdraw your attack. In return he grants you file formats, patents, and this chest of gold which I am to pay to you personally.

      Eric Raymond: File formats and patents. Gold. That I should become Judas?

      Brad Smith: Peace is made in such ways.

      Eric Raymond: Slaves are made in such ways. The last time Gates spoke of peace I was a boy. And many open-source nobles, who would not be slaves, were lured by him under a flag of truce to a barn, where he embraced and extended and extinguished them. I was very young, but I remember this Gates notion of peace.

  • Maybe. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Bananatree3 ( 872975 )
    Maybe, Just maybe, Microsoft and Linux fans can sit down at the same table and talk about the current computer market scene, but it will take some SERIOUS, serious change in Microsoft's approach (FUD, monopolizing, etc.). It would be a great day, but hopefully Microsoft will at some point open at least some of its software up.
    • Look, the very nature of "intellectual property" accepts that fact that you believe that it's "OK" to use the coercive power of government to controll waht people copy. So let there be no doubt, we are what we hold ourselves accountable to, and we are far more beholden to the forces that are pulling us apart from Microsoft that the ones that are keeping us together.

      One more thing, if it's only about the technology, and not freedom. Then what's to keep Microsoft from offering key people money and benefits
  • Enemies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NETHED ( 258016 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @06:32PM (#12388968) Homepage
    Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @06:32PM (#12388969)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Re:What?! (Score:3, Funny)

      by Catbeller ( 118204 )
      1. Denial
      2. Derision
      3. Accusation
      4. PR
      5. Inviting everyone to sit down together at table
      6. Get goods on Stallman, blackmail
      7. Patent everything at the table
      8. Toss everyone off the table
      9. Profit!
      10. Sue 2000 IRS employees simultaneously, get IRS to declare Microsoft a religion
      11. Try to enable Kirstie Allen's comeback

      wait, got stories mixed up here...
    • Re:What?! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by michaeldot ( 751590 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @08:05PM (#12389564)
      They did recently acknowledge Linux as an operating system, instead of a cancer (they included support for it in VirtualPC).

      Support for Linux in Virtual PC existed long before Microsoft bought it from Connectix. In fact, at one stage you could buy it with an OS pack that had Red Hat Linux pre-installed. That is not available now.

      And glancing through the web site product specs [microsoft.com] to research my post, there is no mention of Linux. Since Virtual PC emulates a hardware PC, they'd have to purposely somehow disable emulation for Linux (if that is even possible, it's like Intel making a CPU that wouldn't run an OS).

      In other words, I don't think Virtual PC is an acknowledgment of Linux as an alternative OS that PC users would want to run.

      The FUD that they pay "research" companies to publish is though...

  • Ho hum, again? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by yagu ( 721525 ) <yayaguNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday April 29, 2005 @06:33PM (#12388972) Journal

    And, for my more serious post.... Microsoft has "reached out" before. Seemingly not many remember their big PR campaign when they first released NT circa 1992. One of the big claims, one of the big selling points of their "new technology" (not what NT stands for, btw) was NT's POSIX compliance.... Microsoft purportedly was then about to "join" the open architecture community. They even convinced me to go work for them. But, it turned out they didn't do complete POSIX (only implemented the API, not the User Utilities), and only did the POSIX at all to get government contracts (I know this, I was at an internal presentation where "Margaret" prefaced the presentation with the comments, "We are only doing POSIX as a checkbox, so we can get government contracts..." (I am not making this up.))

    • Re:Ho hum, again? (Score:5, Informative)

      by harvardian ( 140312 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @07:31PM (#12389368)
      one of the big selling points of their "new technology" (not what NT stands for, btw)

      It's not? [microsoft.com]
      Q. What does the word NT (in "Windows NT") stand for? Is it just a name that Microsoft conjured up from thin air or does it actually have a full name like "Networked Terminal"? Souvik Das, Ithaca, NY (souvik@oracorp.com)

      A. When we first released Windows NT in 1993, Sun said it stood for "Not There" and IBM said it stood for "Nice Try."

      Actually, the letters stood for "New Technology."

      But the letters have long since lost any specific meaning. Today, "NT" is just a designation for our high-end version of Windows.
      • Which goes with the obvious that Windows 2000 is based on New Technology Technology.
      • Re:Ho hum, again? (Score:3, Informative)

        by retards ( 320893 )
        This is complete hearsay, but I heard some VMS dudes worked on the NT kernel, so they incremented the letters by one, hence WNT, and thus Windows NT (like HAL is an decrement of IBM).

        Like I said, hearsay.
    • Re:Ho hum, again? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ebuck ( 585470 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @07:32PM (#12389372)
      My favorite "reach out" was close enough to reach into my old workplace a few years back.

      Basically they invited a staunch Palm OS advocate (who incidentally was a *BSD/UNIX advocate) to ask about the state of PDAs/handhelds and what could be done to improve it.

      He was really excited, as it would allow him to give direct input into the designers of what would be the next Windows CE. When he came back he was sporting a new PDA, and indicated that overall he had a great time. That is, until he talked about the time when they met with the group that wanted their input.

      Basically, everything that was asked for was corrected, and the outside "experts" were persuaded, conjoled, and flat out told what they wanted was a windows-like interface that acted like Palm OS, but in a more windows-98 like way.

      Funny thing is, it worked to some degree. Many of the staunch Palm fans were very busy the next three or so months trying to get the most out of their newly accquired Windows products. Some "converted" whole-heartedly, but a bit-by-bit they eventually drifted back to the Palm-side.

      It could be much harder to make this work in FOSS circles, as MS really doesn't have anything to offer them, yet. But it may be just as disruptive.
      • by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @07:45PM (#12389451)
        It could be much harder to make this work in FOSS circles, as MS really doesn't have anything to offer them

        Hookers.
        Free Hookers.

        For about 30 seconds, linux was sexy and guys wearing red hats stuffed with shares could pick up the chicks.
        Then the .bomb took it all away.

        But MS still has boatloads, freaking tanker-loads, of cash.

        Do not underestimate the power of free with beer poon to halt all progress in the Free software world.
    • Re:Ho hum, again? (Score:3, Informative)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 )
      FWIW, Microsoft now provides (free) "Services For Unix" which implements [most of?] the utilities, too. As usual, it is only due to pragmatism. Not sure what else you expect from a publicly held corporation, though. Why ELSE would they implement POSIX? To make their competitors stronger by supporting THEIR standards? Microsoft is a bad guy, but this ain't why.
  • by Michael.Forman ( 169981 ) * on Friday April 29, 2005 @06:33PM (#12388974) Homepage Journal

    "You expect me to talk, OSS?"
    "No, Mr. Gates, I expect you to die."

    Michael. [michael-forman.com]
    • Re:Just say Dr. No (Score:5, Informative)

      by bataras ( 169548 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @06:52PM (#12389125)
      wasn't that goldfinger?
  • by rice_burners_suck ( 243660 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @06:33PM (#12388977)
    This is either a knee-jerk reaction to their missed projections for the quarter, or this is an April Fool's joke 29 days late. Well, it goes right in line with what I posted in another story about Microsoft:
    It's not a surprise at all that Microsoft missed their quarterly revenue projection. After all, the company is very accustomed to basically controlling the marketplace and dictating their terms upon their customers. The quarterly projections must have accounted for nearly everybody still using prior versions of Windows to be using Windows XP or Windows Server 2003. They expected tons of sales of the newest Microsoft Office. However, many sysadmins and IT departments are wary of further "upgrades" due to the problems posed by them. Many users who have Office 2000 continue to use it because newer versions, despite their glossy advertisements, really offer nothing new for this type of work. Other users, such as most employees at this company that used to use MS Office, are discovering OpenOffice.org and discovering, for various reasons, that they actually like it better. Essentially, many companies are slowly migrating away from Windows and Office, finding that other software out there is quite capable of doing the job without all the hoopla.

    In our organization, spending on software has declined almost to nothing. We no longer buy MS Office products because OpenOffice.org has eliminated the need to do so; all of our critical infrastructure runs on Linux and FreeBSD; and the desktops and workstations that run Windows continue to run the same versions of Windows that originally came on those workstations. Therefore, we use Windows 98, Me, and XP Personal, which came on several eMachines we bought for office use. And the funniest thing is that while the Linux and FreeBSD boxes continue to use the latest stable and release versions of the OS and software, the Windows boxes have not been upgraded, and there are no plans to do so. It would only be costly, and would offer us nothing in exchange. And I believe the same applies to countless organizations the world over. People will simply not continue to upgrade hardware and software forever.

    That, my friends, is why Microsoft missed its quarterly revenue projection.

    I'd say that pretty much sums it up. Microsoft has finally realized, after I don't know how many years, that it will not pay to stay with the old fashioned business model that no longer fits.
    • I dunno, a net profit of 2.56 billion that is almost double the amount for the same period last year is hardly the kiss of death on a company.

      Why is it that Microsoft is always on the 'innovate or die' line when they're making billions of dollars? It's all well and good to point out a projection that didn't quite make it but when you're attaching it to a 2.56 billion dollar net profit, it sounds a little ludicrous. You could say that it is a 'sign' of Microsoft's future demise, but people have been pointin
    • This is either a knee-jerk reaction to their missed projections for the quarter, or this is an April Fool's joke 29 days late.

      28 days late.

      -- Your friendly neighborhood pedant


    • That, my friends, is why Microsoft missed its quarterly revenue projection

      You are making the mistake of disregarding the rest of the story. [thestreet.com]

      But in fairness, /. isn't a site for MBAs or accountants.

  • Publicity stunt (Score:3, Informative)

    by treff89 ( 874098 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @06:34PM (#12388979)
    This is nothing more than a marketing brainwave. Microsoft will never in their right mind help the OSS community, unless the OSS community helps them an exponentially greater amount. MS realises they are fast losing ground to FOSSS, and the lifejackets are out.
    • Re:Publicity stunt (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tarcastil ( 832141 ) *
      If this is a publicity stunt, someone in Microsoft's marketting department's getting fired. This move won't sway many to stay with Microsoft products. If anything, it acknowledges OSS as a real force in the marketplace, bringing more people consider OSS. Microsoft simply realizes that by cooperating, they can possibly use OSS to their advantage like many others have.
      • Re:Publicity stunt (Score:4, Insightful)

        by grcumb ( 781340 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @07:51PM (#12389493) Homepage Journal

        "If this is a publicity stunt, someone in Microsoft's marketting department's getting fired. This move won't sway many to stay with Microsoft products. If anything, it acknowledges OSS as a real force in the marketplace, bringing more people consider OSS."

        Well said. But that's not the end of the stupidity. Microsoft cannot allow this kind of talk to gain credibility. FOSS advocates have nothing to lose and everything to gain by being perfectly frank and honest. Add to this the credibility and exposure they'd earn from being treated as equals by Microsoft, and they'd represent more of a threat than ever before.

        These are not marketing folks they'd be sitting down with. FOSS geeks don't come out of the boardroom talking about synergies and new paradigms, they come out saying, things like 'MS has refused to budge on their third-rate security measures, their proprietary file formats and closed APIs. As a result, you the consumer will continue to suffer, in spite of our best efforts to mitigate the damage.'

        Microsoft has a pathological streak a mile wide when it comes to partnership and dialogue. IBM, Lotus, Stack Technologies and Novell have all been victimised by their blindly opportunistic avarice. They all left it to the lawyers to do the talking, and never expressed their full and frank opinions on MS' business practices - likely because in many cases it would leave them open to pot-and-kettle accusations.

        FOSS advocates aren't (typically) officers of publicly owned corporations, so they don't have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders that requires that they 'play nice'. If they're given a pulpit to preach from, you can count on some fairly frank discussion that corporate powers-that-be would find quite difficult to address. That's why even 'good guys' like IBM tends to avoid open discussion about the principles of Free Software.

  • No, no... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lostie ( 772712 ) * on Friday April 29, 2005 @06:34PM (#12388988)
    Microsoft "working with it's competitors" - that just isn't realistic, it would be kinda like the Goatse man getting a job as a children's TV presenter.
  • by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @06:36PM (#12389001)
    If you are going to sup with the devil, bring a long spoon...

  • Bridges? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Eric Damron ( 553630 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @06:38PM (#12389017)
    "'We're going to have to figure out how to build some bridges between the various parts of our industry,' he said. Eric Raymond"

    Microsoft doesn't have a problem with building bridges... As long as they're toll bridges...
  • Three words: Embrace and extend.
  • smack my bitch up (Score:3, Insightful)

    by maelstrom ( 638 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @06:39PM (#12389029) Homepage Journal
    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

    Mohandas Gandhi
    • by Anonymous Coward
      If I never, ever, ever hear anyone ever use this quote again in reference to OSS on Slashdot, it will be too soon.
  • by Nitroshock ( 525868 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @06:41PM (#12389045)
    "Eric Raymond responds, saying the first steps Microsoft could do are to open their file formats and support open standards" Response from Microsoft: Um, we wanted to build bridges that didn't involve contribution on our part.
  • Easy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by truG33k ( 740973 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @06:41PM (#12389047)
    How about following the RFC's to start. Once M$ adhears to the specs in RFC's devolpers will not longer have to alter RFC compliant code to be M$ compliant.
    • Re:Easy (Score:2, Interesting)

      How about following the RFC's to start [with]. Once M$ adhears to the specs in RFC's devolpers will not longer have to alter RFC compliant code to be M$ compliant.

      Please implement the RFC entitled "English grammar: a proposal for a unified language" dated 1476. I'm having trouble decoding your proprietary file format.

      Oh, and I'll let you in on a little secret: saying "M$" was extremely funny in the early nineties...
  • by lheal ( 86013 ) <lheal1999@yah[ ]com ['oo.' in gap]> on Friday April 29, 2005 @06:42PM (#12389049) Journal
    What a load of baloney!

    Microsoft wants to interoperate? Go ahead! Just quit *not* interoperating.

    Microsoft wants to reach out to the Open Source community? Uh, they really don't get it, do they. There aren't any leaders to reach out to! There are leaders, but it's not a labor union or a PTA.

    We'll judge you by your actions, not by what you say to our leaders.
  • by BanjoBob ( 686644 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @06:43PM (#12389064) Homepage Journal
    The European Union (EU) is after Microsoft in a big way. The EU wants them to enable operability with other systems. The timing is such that these may be interrelated.

  • They get them all in one room ?

    uh oh [imdb.com]

    btw, great movie :)

  • "I will reach across the aisle, and I will listen and work together..."

    Um, yeah. When's that starting again?

    Actions always speak louder than words, in both cases.

  • They know perfectly what they've to do: Open the source as much as you can, open the standards, play nice with your competitors

    This is just free advertisement. They know perfectly what to do. They can hire people who can tell them what to do.
  • by techguy911 ( 672069 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @06:47PM (#12389096)
    How this discussion will go...
    MSFT: What can we do to better interoperate with OSS?
    OSS: How about allowing Office to work with OSS file formats, or use an open standard that other programs can interoperate with.
    MSFT: Um, uhh, We'll get back to you on that one. What else?
    OSS: How about using standard video file formats such as MPG instead of the perverted version of MPG called WMA that only works with WMP.
    MSFT: Uh, ehh, I don't think so! Anything else?
    OSS: Well, how about using a file system that is open, publishing your own, or working with OSS file systems.
    MSFT: This is crazy! I'm outta here!
  • by NatteringNabob ( 829042 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @06:49PM (#12389109)
    Well, I RTFA, and this is one of the most misleading titles I've seen in a long time. Microsoft explicitly states that they think their arsenal of software patents is a fine thing and they aren't willing to give up the right to sue. And if they aren't willing to give that up, what is there to discuss? In addition, there isn't anything that requires discussion. If Microsoft was really interested in wokring with the FOSS community, I'm sure there is somebody in their army of lawyers that could figure out how to write a royalty free non-discriminatory patent license that was compatible with the GPL. There is no need to discuss this with anybody, they can 'just do it'. The fact that they chose instead to have one of their lawyers give a content free, buzzword compliant speech tells us all we need to know about Microsoft's olive branch; the only thing they are interested in using it for is to poke people in the eye with it so they don't notice the sledgehammer they are holding in the other hand.
  • Pattern of Conduct (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Thunderstruck ( 210399 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @06:50PM (#12389117)
    The typical MS pattern is this: Make it easier to accomplish your goal with our software and the competition dies. Make it easier to just use our browser and netscape dies. Make it easier to use our word processor and Word Perfect dies.

    Now take all these OSS groups. Many programmers want lots of people to use their software. They work for free, but they still get credit. Microsoft can give them all the credit in the world. All they have to do is bow down and worship ... wait... all they have to do is write software for Windows. Do this, and the competitor (Linux) will die.

  • Don't do it! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fratz ( 630746 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @06:53PM (#12389130)
    Let me get this straight - they're asking their competitors (the OSS community) what could be done to enable better interoperation between MS and OSS? Does it occur to anyone that the negation of the answers provides MS with a roadmap of how to best avoid interoperation?

    Why would any company ask its competition how they could get along better, if the real motivation wasn't to be more competitive? Am I missing something?

  • by Tiger4 ( 840741 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @06:54PM (#12389144)
    "saying the first steps Microsoft could do are to open their file formats and support open standards."

    MS does support open standards. They can read and write to them just fine. They just like to "enhance" them, and "innovate" to add functionality that, sadly, leaves open software hopelessly out of date and incompatible.

    If you want full featured software, come over to the dar..., uh, our side of the street.

    • If you include ignoring the standard definition and doing whatever you please, yes, they read it. By that definition, my toaster reads it, too.

      Do you really think they wanted to control the browser market for any purpose than to destroy it, because it was free and open?

      Unfortunately for them, even after abandoning their users and code base for several years after they thought their opposition was dead, they find they have to come back to it once in a while.

      If they would implement and support W3C and oth

  • Give Microsoft a break! They just want to chat to them, see if they can get some partnerships going. All they want to do is treat a few selected OSS individuals just like they treat their business partners.

    (heh heh heh)
  • by mcdtracy ( 180768 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @07:01PM (#12389193)
    Microsft has been characterized by their actions over the years as predatory... even when it hurt the bottom line. They would target and squash a company just because they could... because they relished a cutthroat style of competition to get motivated.

    If I could get an ear within MS I'd try to get them to admit to themselves that the Internet made them more money and the Internet was entirely structured from Open Standards... ethernet, TCP/IP, sockets, HTML over HTTP and on and on... They profitted enormously from NOT fighting these standards... no dial-up MSN only.

    The reason for this is the Rising Tide effect.
    More investment is poured into a market and most companies benefit in some ratio to their marketshare... there's some shifting but the big winners accelerate adoption and don't fight the new standards that are causing the explosive growth.

    Microsoft saw the benefits and only tried minor hacks to the standards (DHTML for example).

    When microsoft realizes that having your only significant competitor cost almost nothing they should have the next big Eureka moment. The way to destroy the Sun, HP, and IBM Unix businesses is to accelerate the enterprise adoption of Linux.

    Oracle got it... if they spend less on Sun, HP and IBM hardware they have more budget for our products... duh. IT budgets are finite... growth comes from getting more of the budget.

    Sun, HP and IBM could be effectively driven out of the Enterprise software business. Enterprise deployments of big applications goes crazy based upon new cost models and Microsoft's boat rises on that new high tide.

    The logical extension is commercial Linux versions of their higher margin products (MS SQL, Visual Studio) and even more growth as a company when
    the only other significant alternative is an OSS project with little revenue to help it compete for Enterprise requirements.

    That's what I might tell this guy to explain to Bill gates and Bill of course would sob gently...
    "You mean we've already won? There's no one left to kill? Just mine the veins we already own?."
    Well... there is Oracle still.

    Bill will likely develop an interest in politics where dirty tricks still mean something.

    McD

  • two things (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ummit ( 248909 )

    All cynicism and paranoia aside, if Microsoft is serious about wanting to interoperate (with anybody, not just the FOSS community), here's the input I'd give them:

    1. Use open standards, and don't try to subvert them with little "improvements" so that they don't interoperate except with MS software any more.
    2. Don't gratuitously invent your own closed or encumbered standards and then try to get them accepted as industry standards.
    3. Stop giving the impression (and remember that actions speak louder than wo
  • What is this, bizzaro world? Where Apple is evil and Microsoft the good guy?

    Someone hold me, I'm scared...

  • by expro ( 597113 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @07:03PM (#12389203)

    Sure, what could be wrong with that?

    Name a good software company that has had a serious relationship with Microsoft as a competitor and has come off better over a 5-year period as a result of trying to cooperate with them (OK, IBM lasted a bit longer, but most are dead).

    IBM has demonstrated any number of ways of showing some level of cooperation with the open or free software communities. Apple, too, has earned some good karma, basing their OS and browser on open code and architecture, even if they keep a lot proprietary. Sun has been involved as well, and it hasn't kept them from keeping other things private. So why can't Microsoft think of something like most other major companies have, without calling a conference of competitors that sounds too much like looking for a target to attack, much like SCO's supposed invitation to IBM and the open source community to sit down and work things out?

    Stop being so evil. Microsoft has enough money in the bank to be able to afford business ethics and earn trust.

  • by zerojoker ( 812874 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @07:07PM (#12389222)
    it was reported Eric Raymond was seen buying a "No, I will not fix your Windows" t-shirt...
  • by FrankSchwab ( 675585 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @07:08PM (#12389232) Journal
    You want to work with the Open Source community? Fine. Show us your openness. Tell us about your relationship with SCO. That'll be one big test of their willingness.
  • 3 things: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Southpaw018 ( 793465 ) * on Friday April 29, 2005 @07:09PM (#12389238) Journal
    -Stop saying OSS is Communist
    -Full CSS2/XHTML 1.1 in IE7 with no proprietary extensions
    -As stated, open the file formats.
  • by paj1234 ( 234750 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @07:43PM (#12389435)
    Here is a first-hand account of Microsoft's earlier effort in London, UK. Look for the great quote from Debian's Philip Hands at the end of the article.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/28/ms_mugs_th e_facts/ [theregister.co.uk]
  • by john_anderson_ii ( 786633 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @08:21PM (#12389641)
    Companies that have found themselved in competition with OSS have finally started to see value. Not in the OSS, certaintly not, but in the (free, as in beer) developer base. You see, developers that work for free are a finite resource, there simply aren't that many to go around.

    Sun caught on to this not too long ago, and psudo open sourced Solaris in the hopes that developers would flock to it, fix it, maintain it, and innovate on it. Sun realized that by open sourcing solaris it could, in theory, triple maybe quadruple its development and enginnering efforts for free! Oh, yeah, and it still owns and can sell Solaris!

    Now MS sees that it can kill Linux, OpenOffice and other competetors by drawing it's developer base into the MS flock. I'm not talking about Linus and Stallman here, but I'm talking about the applications developers. People don't run any OS to stare at it, they use it to run programs.

    I don't see MS open sourcing hardly anything, but what I do them doing is building an MS type source forge, some sort of MS exclusive [psudo] open source license, and maybe open sourcing it's development tools under that [psudo] open source license. They think they can give away free tools, and sponser a collaboration site and perhaps a few hundred or thousand OSS developers will start coding software that adds value to Windows for free.

    I hope they are wrong.
  • desperation ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tsiangkun ( 746511 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @09:13PM (#12389874) Homepage
    I think it wreaks of desperation. MS isn't the new thing anymore, they are the big bad monopoly. It's not easy to market as the big bad guy, so they want to be seen like IBM,the former big bad guy that's getting attention over OSS commitments. Plus that whole SCO thing didn't crush linux as expected, and longhorn is getting poor reviews. People are frustrated with poor security ruining they computers.

    In the past MS didn't even give a phukene reach around as they embraced the competition, and now they are offering to reach out ?

    I just don't really care have microsoft reach out. They carved out their solitude with monopolistic practices, and now they can deal with the consequences.
  • by johnrpenner ( 40054 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @10:30PM (#12390241) Homepage
    --| Richard Stallman on How to Deal with Microsoft |-----

    The following is Mirrored from: http://linuxtoday.com/stories/4999.html [linuxtoday.com]

    Richard Stallman proposes three remedies that would help enable free
    software operating systems such as GNU/Linux compete technically while
    respecting users' freedom. These three remedies directly address the three
    biggest obstacles to development of free operating systems, and to giving
    them the capability of running programs written for Windows. They also
    directly address the methods Microsoft has said (in the "Halloween
    documents") it will use to obstruct free software. It would be most
    effective to use all three of these remedies together.

    1. Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all interfaces
    between software components, all communications protocols, and all file
    formats. This would block one of Microsoft's favourite tactics: secret and
    incompatible interfaces.

    To make this requirement really stick, Microsoft should not be allowed to
    use a nondisclosure agreement with some other organization to excuse
    implementing a secret interface. The rule must be: if they cannot publish
    the interface, they cannot release an implementation of it.

    It would, however, be acceptable to permit Microsoft to begin
    implementation of an interface before the publication of the interface
    specifications, provided that they release the specifications
    simultaneously with the implementation.

    Enforcement of this requirement would not be difficult. If other software
    developers complain that the published documentation fails to describe
    some aspect of the interface, or how to do a certain job, the court would
    direct Microsoft to answer questions about it. Any questions about
    interfaces (as distinguished from implementation techniques) would have to
    be answered.

    Similar terms were included in an agreement between IBM and the European
    Community in 1984, settling another antitrust dispute. See
    http://www.essential.org/antitrust/ibm/ibm1984ec.h tml [essential.org].

    2. Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the field of
    software. (If they happen to own patents that apply to other fields, those
    other fields could be included in this requirement, or they could be
    exempt.) This would block the other tactic Microsoft mentioned in the
    Halloween documents: using patents to block development of free software.

    We should give Microsoft the option of using either self-defense or mutual
    defense. Self defense means offering to cross-license all patents at no
    charge with anyone who wishes to do so. Mutual defense means licensing all
    patents to a pool which anyone can join -- even people who have no patents
    of their own. The pool would license all members' patents to all members.

    It is crucial to address the issue of patents, because it does no good to
    have Microsoft publish an interface, if they have managed to work some
    patented wrinkle into it (or into the functionality it gives access to),
    such that the rest of us are not allowed to implement it.

    3. Require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working with Microsoft
    software, unless the hardware's complete specifications have been
    published, so that any programmer can implement software to support the
    same hardware.

    Secret hardware specifications are not in general Microsoft's doing, but
    they are a significant obstacle for the development of the free operating
    systems that can provide competition for Windows. To remove this obstacle
    would be a great help. If a settlement is negotiated with Microsoft,
    including this sort of provision in it is not impossible -- it would be a
    matter of negotiation.

    This April, Microsoft's Ballmer announced a possible plan to release
    source code for some part of
  • by Truth_Quark ( 219407 ) on Friday April 29, 2005 @10:48PM (#12390313) Journal
    to explain the new meanings of these terms :

    "Extend an olive branch" - (vb)
    (1) To attack with IP lawsuits, especially when the lawsuit is very weak, but the party being sued does not have the resources to fight it.
    (2) To fund 3rd parties to attack with IP lawsuits. "Microsoft extended and olive branch, through SCO, to IBM and Daimler-Chrysler "

    "Build some bridges" (vb)
    To sit down with a party to decide how to most effectively extend an olive branch. (qv)

    "Collaborate" (vb)
    To protect one's monopoly by destroying ones opponents by any means, fair or foul. Especially of political bribery to effect legal changes that make the modus operandi of potential competitors illegal.

    "Open up one's file formats"
    (1) To obscure one's file formats, especially formatting, so that competitors products look buggy when viewing files.
    (2) To send malformed files when ones servers are communicating with one's potential competitors. "Microsoft's web servers have opened their file formats to the Opera web-browser"

Ummm, well, OK. The network's the network, the computer's the computer. Sorry for the confusion. -- Sun Microsystems

Working...