Linux Foundation - We'd Love to Work with Microsoft 147
johnno writes "In an interview with the Australian site pc world Jim Zemlin, the Linux Foundation's executive director, talks about the desire to interoperate with Microsoft and discusses the desktop outlook for Linux. He answers questions on the kind of legal protection Linux requires, whether anything ever come of the Microsoft protest that there's Linux code that they have patented, as well as Linux penetration on desktops and breaking Microsoft's stranglehold on the market. He also discusses Microsoft's recent move to open up their documentation, and why they'd like to work with the Redmond giant — 'We'd like to have a place where developers can come and work on making Linux more effectively interoperate with Microsoft products. And we'd like to do that in the open-source way that's not tied to any specific marketing agreement, that's not tied to any specific contract, that is an open process that can be participated in by anyone in the community,' Zemlin says."
I'm always suspicious ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Although they may want to work with their competitor, they might not want to do it on anything EXCEPT their terms, and I get the feeling that this is the same situation - They say "we'd love to work with you", but when the other party doesn't agree to their terms, it is the other party that looks like they're refusing to co-operate.
Re:Year of the Linux Desktop! (Score:4, Interesting)
Good Luck With That (Score:3, Interesting)
But since that's what the summary says, that's what everybody will be talking about, so:
I'd love to see MS bury the hatchet as much as anybody. But where's the Windows Genuine Advantage in that?
MS is obviously not going to give away filesystem specs or the other interoperability roadblocks that collectively create the best argument to businesses for continuing to pay the Windows tax. So the most collaboration we might see is in getting MS Office to run on Linux. In other words, if Redmond bit at all, it'd be at the chance to stomp on OpenOffice to prevent future competition in its core business desktop market.
***
Anyway, besides that, the article was surprisingly content-free. Yes, there are interesting synergies between extending battery life on mobile devices vs. saving energy in the data center. We get that, no need to repeat.
The interviewee promotes this thesis: these synergies are possible primarily through the collaborative Linux environment, which is Linux's great strength. However, I would argue that those synergies are equally possible in closed-source shops, but it's just that management has to learn to listen to them differently -- and that that is only a matter of time. For instance, I used to work in a company that made document-management databases for law firms. I think there's a huge market for (appropriately crippled and cheapened) versions of this product in the private desktop market, for promoting "paperless offices" in non-law businesses, and for aiding academic research: three huge markets that would be very happy to get rid of their physical files and add markup and search if you have enterprise-reliability document management database software. Nobody listened, though; in an Open Source environment, I could've just forked and
Observations and critique (Score:2, Interesting)
Zemlin: Yes. Yes, I think it will actually.
Zemlin: Monopolies don't last forever, so I mean, I think they've got a long way to go. It's just natural over time that people aren't going to allow a single company to dominate the market.
Zemlin: It obviously was a desktop monopoly for a period of time.
Zemlin: [If Solaris was FLOSS eight years ago maybe, blah blah
(None of this is to say that I disagree with Zemlin's assertions, just that I think he could have made a better argument).
Re:Of course. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sightings of Flying Pigs in N/W USA? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Embrace, extend, extinguish.. (Score:5, Interesting)
My experience is the average computer user believes MS products are the only ones available.
This is too sadly true... anyone who has worked in tech support or repair in a consumer based, Windows based environment can attest to that. The number of times an average Windows user has told me
"I clicked on the Internet and..." (umm, IE is NOT the Internet)
"I need to buy a new Windows for my ______" (umm, do you mean a computer with Windows on it?)
"So that MAC is Windows?" (no, hardware is not an OS...)
"My Windows isn't turning on - it keeps telling me 'Drive Failure'" (no, your hardware/mobo/BIOS is telling you that - your computer hasnt even started loading Windows)
"So, OpenOffice is Word?" (Ugh... no - but it is compatible for what you would need it for - and FREE.) - customer proceeds to buy a copy of Office because "that can't be true... it's not (Microsoft/Office/etc)"
"Well, someone installed Firefox for me, but I needed to get on the Internet, so I clicked the Internet button (IE again)." (IE is NOT the Internet)
Heck, many users even seem to think that Office is part of Windows (and thus many would wonder why that part of Windows stopped working in 60 days - when the trial expired - we actually had customers come into CompUSA who threatened to sue us and HP/Compaq/etc because that "part of" Windows broke, and we wouldn't fix it and told them they had to pay to get it "fixed" - no matter how many times we explained it to them or showed them the "60 Day Trial" icon). Heck, the number of people who think you cannot create a Word (compatible) document - much less any document - without Office - is astounding.
MS has been very good at equating function=some MS product - and too many users aren't tech saavy enough to understand that is not the case.
Why the parent has not yet been modded up, I dont know (well, the day is still early). This (perception) issue is definitely key to the "interoperability" issue with Linux and Windows - because even if Linux fully interoperated with Windows, the perception that a MS product is a certain task/function must still be overcome.