Seven Reasons Microsoft Loves Open Source

tlockney writes "Next week at Microsoft's MIX, whurley will be leading a discussion on 'Open Source, the Web, Interoperability, and Microsoft'. To kick off a bit of pre-session discussion and enlist the help of others in putting Microsoft on the spot, whurley, king of all things open source at BMC has written an article entitled 'Seven Reasons Microsoft Loves Open Source'."

Reason zero

They can read it & re-engineer it as paid for product !

Re:Reason zero

In 2003 Microsoft listed Open Source in their SEC filings as a threat to their business model [msversus.org]. Before then they mostly ignored it. Then it was "a cancer." And now they pretend to like open source. I hardly consider them "on the wagon" as much as realizing they must augment some of their practices in order to compete affectively.

7 reasons Microsoft loves Open Source - RTFA

It's a cookbook!!

Worded differently

"Embrace and Extend"

I hate when they do that.

I can see microsoft doing what apple did

Everybody keps saying that linux would put Microsoft out of business. No it won't . I honestly think microsoft would do what apple did. Linux would be the main part of windows and microsoft would make the user interface the standard windows one. Sorry I didnt describe it right. I can see microsoft doing that.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

It doesn't work like that - if MS is forced to use a UNIX based OS derivative in order to survive they may not go out of business but it is endgame as far as dominance is concerned. That is a lose situation for MS, not a win.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

if MS is forced to use a UNIX based OS derivative in order to survive they may not go out of business but it is endgame as far as dominance is concerned.

To say nothing of the fact that UNIX and NT are architecturally very different animals.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

You are uninformed.

Apple not only maintained is own Unix distro of A/UX, sold AIX servers, and created its own Linux distro prior to OS/X, but also ported the Mac environment to other Unix variants, using MAE and laster MAS.

- Steve Jobs and 20 Years of Apple Servers [roughlydrafted.com]

And everybody knows that NT's "POSIX compliance" was a bullshit dance designed to make NT legal to sell to the government. NT never offered anything more than pretend support for POSIX, and it was of no more importance to Microsoft as a subsystem within NT than was OS/2.

Further, since POSIX compatilbility is techniclly a paid seal of approval on a specific implementation of Unix APIs, of course Linux as general idea can't ever techically pay to attach the POSIX trademark to itself in the way Microsoft pretended to.

The reality is that the only value of POSIX is as a general synonym for "Unix-like compatibility." In the real world, Linux currently helps define what that is; NT does not offer this at all.

Are you really trying to argue that NT provides some useful sort of compatibility for Unix apps? Citing the Wikipedia as a source does not do much to create credibility for your conjecture.

NT POSIX memories.

As the parent says the NT POSIX was severely sucky.

In the NT3 timeframe (approx 12 years ago now), there was a big effort to sell NT to companies, such as the one I worked for then, supplying back office /server room style products. Many/most products of the time were running on Unix boxes or similar. We were using Unix x86 boxes (SCO etc) for compter tephony applications. NT had to check a few boxes to encourage people to switch: POSIX and streams driver support. This gave people a reasonable porting avenue to a cheaper OS (NT was about half or a third of SCO's cost at the time).

The POSIX and streams drivers were very inefficient, and were dropped within a short while (once the bait and switch had worked).

This ploy was very clever on MS's part. Using ourselves as a benchmark for people in this space, our customers were putting on some pressure to provide NT based products because they were eating the MS blurb and wanted to reduce costs. Our techies looked at NT and figured out what would be needed to port: POSIX-check, streams driver model - check. So we say that on paper it can be done with trivial architectural change. Marketing start hyping the NT-based offering. The business people say make it so, so we do. Unfortunately we find the POSIX and streams driver model are very slow on NT, so end up having to start doing native drivers and non-POSIX code. We start slipping, marketing starts screaming and the portability gets dumped in favour of getting shipping. The bait and switch has worked.

We never got any benefit from NT POSIX or the MS streams driver. Our systems went from requiring low-end (16-25MHz) 386s to 100+MHz 486. Basically a very bad case of bait and switch.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

if MS is forced to use a UNIX based OS derivative... it is endgame as far as dominance is concerned. That is a lose situation for MS, not a win.

That is certainly a loss for Bill Gates and perhaps the rest of the original cadre of MS corporate officers. Throughout the 80s and 90s, MS was steered consistently toward a "vision" of dominance that really wasn't profit oriented. MS has consistently passed up the opportunity to make profits in its efforts to become the dominant player in different digital markets. It has thrown more money down the toilet to prevent someone else from succeeding in an area where it wasn't good enough to win on merit than many companies had earned during those 20 years.

When MS gives up this foolishness and starts acting like a profit-oriented business, it will almost certainly lose its tarnish and become a respectable member of the business community.

That will be a long-term winning situation for MS. The only losers will be Gates (who has already thrown in the towel), Balmer, and the rest of the original dreamers with their juvenile fantasies about attaining world dominance.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

Everybody keps saying that linux would put Microsoft out of business.

I'm not sure who "everybody" is... but such claims ignore history. It ignores the very impressive turn-on-a-dime business strategy Microsoft pulled off after they initially failed to realize the importance of the Internet. And it ignores a historical precedence in the changing of IBM's desktop hardware market when it shifted from a proprietary to commodity platform.

Micorosoft is not going to simply curl up and die. They've proven to be agile enough to react to threats / lost opportunities. And they have the momentum and resources to deal with a suddenly difficult market.

If we're lucky, Microsoft will become the software / OS equivalent of IBM. Sure - they're still powerhouses in the Industry... but they no longer control it. They have influence but have to compete with every other market player for that influence to pay off and drive the market in their desired direction.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

Everybody keps saying that linux would put Microsoft out of business. No it won't . I honestly think microsoft would do what apple did. Linux would be the main part of windows and microsoft would make the user interface the standard windows one. Sorry I didnt describe it right. I can see microsoft doing that.

That sounds plausible except for a few minor details. The first of which is the GPL. One of the major cornerstones of the GPL is that there are protections to prevent people from exploiting GPL code in the way MS would certainly exploit it. Microsoft has built an empire of locking every other competitor out (sometimes through illegal means). The famous extend part of the embrace, extend, extinguish ploy would not be allowed by the GPL.

Also, Apple was able to develop OS X not using Linux. Apple acquired NeXT which had developed some advanced technologies used in OS X. Also they based their kernel on BSD which does not have the same restrictions as Linux.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

I think there's a bit of a difference there. The "BSD backed" is really a custom microkernel (Darwin), with BSD userspace tools. But this really isn't important, because the thing that Apple provides that's really different and proprietary is the system libraries: Cocoa, Carbon, etc. These are the APIs that application writers code to for the Mac platform. Because of this, you can't just compile Darwin for your Intel machine and run Mac apps; the APIs are closed-source. Trying to clone that would be an effort on the order of the WINE project; as we've seen with WINE, it doesn't really matter what kernel you're using, within reason, it's the system APIs that matter for running applications.

If Windows ever used a Linux kernel (hah!), there'd really be very little difference from the current status quo. They'd probably have to fix up the NTFS driver a lot (or use a different filesystem--most users wouldn't notice or care), they'd certainly benefit from all the built-in drivers, but the graphics subsystem would probably be a big showstopper since they'd either have to use X and change a lot of things, or make their own subsystem built into the kernel which they seem to like to do. Other than that, they'd certainly keep their whole system libraries proprietary and secret, which would make it non-trivial for people to run Windows applications on free software. Yes, they could use WINE, but that's still trying to hit a moving target and is developed slowly because of the need for reverse-engineering. Personally, I don't see why MS would ever bother using a Linux kernel; it doesn't provide them much technical benefit.

Re:I can see microsoft doing what apple did

Personally, I don't see why MS would ever bother using a Linux kernel; it doesn't provide them much technical benefit.

Then again, the NT microkernel seems a bit overstressed for what it's being pushed to do in Vista, and it's starting to show... badly. Two versions from now, they're going to have to replace it with something... 'cause what they got now simply isn't going to cut the mustard (well, unless they up the minimum HW requirements to an 8-core box + 16GB of RAM + four SLI-chained vidcards...)

That said, I do agree that it prolly won't be Linux - MSFT will most likely snag the latest *BSD kernel (one that has no GPL encumbrance) and lock it down good and hard. Then they'll build the world's ugliest set of wrappers and APIs for it, then call the results "innovation".

/P

ARTICLE TEXT

Next week I'm leading the "Open Source, the Web, Interoperability, and Microsoft" panel at Mix07 in Vegas, my first Microsoft conference. Naturally, I've been pondering the topic so I don't end up on stage with my pants around my ankles. The more I think about it, the more I think Microsoft loves open source--and not just because they're fools if they don't.

I know popular opinion has Microsoft cursing open source at every turn, but what do the facts indicate? Do they really despise something they clearly benefit from? I don't think so--the folks in Redmond aren't that short-sighted. In fact, I'll give you seven reasons I think Bill and Co. love open source:

They include open source code in their products.

Have you forgotten the first TCP/IP implementation in Windows? It was based on open source code that Windows XP still contains remnants of. Need proof? Point your favorite hex editor at ftp.exe. You'll find the 1983 copyright statement from the Regents of the University of California.

They support open source vendors.

MySQL, SugarCRM, Jboss, and many other open source development efforts benefit from Microsoft's support through programs created to test and verify open source applications on Microsoft platforms.

They benefit from open source everyday.

Two words: free press. Microsoft gets tons of press from their "battle" with open source. This month alone there are over 2000 articles related to "Microsoft and open source." Add countless blogs like mine, and the value of this free chatter goes through the roof.

They open source code.

No, not shared source. I'm referring to Microsoft's Unix tools for Windows; they provide the source code to most of these tools. Sure, we all wish they would do more, but we should acknowledge what they've done to date.

They are adopting open source culture.

The Mix conference is billed as a "72 hour conversation." Remind anyone of BarCamp? There are other examples: the Microsoft Community Blogs, Channel 9, CodePlex, etc. They're embracing openness.

They aren't threatened by open source.

Open source is not the threat; Linux is. Don't confuse the two. Open source is growing rapidly, but Linux has several distinguishing features that make it the real challenger. It's more mature than other projects, it has a larger, more organized developer base, and it's well financed. IBM has spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing, distributing, and advertising Linux, not open source. Microsoft doesn't fear open source; it fears what the competition can do with it.

They realize open source is their future.

Sure, Microsoft sometimes makes it easy for us to hate them, but aren't as disconnected from the pulse of the open source community as you may think. Linux is causing issues for them in the market, and they're working hard to keep up. They didn't build their empire by not planning ahead--even the most closed-minded executive in Redmond realizes open source is in their future.

You all know I'm no Microsoft lover. I'm looking to maximize my opportunity at Mix07. I've given you seven things they have done. Now, you give me seven you wish they'd do, and I'll address the panel with your feedback during our session. This way the conversation will be truly open to the community.

Is this the right talk for him to give?

I think he'd be better qualified to speak on why BMC loves MSIE.

"loves" used very loosely

Microsoft : open source :: Prisonmate Bubba : his bitches

Where I'm from, they have another word besides "love" for that.

Why microsoft really loves open source

It makes it easier for them to get software patents.

Admitted

FTA: "Open source is not the threat; Linux is."

Re:Admitted

That makes no sense. Microsoft primarily makes their money from Windows and Office; with Linux making progress toward a usable desktop and OpenOffice.org already at the state where it can replace MS Office for most tasks, what can Microsoft use to lock people onto their platform? IIS? There's Apache. MSSQL? There are MySQL and PostgeSQL. .NET? There is Mono and Java. There are two reasons why MS still exists: the huge amount of legacy code and applications that cannot run on any other systems, and the lack of corporate hand-holding for customers considering the jump to Linux (though this is rapidly changing). For companies that don't rely on legacy business applications, the ability to roll out Linux desktops to the bulk of their users can be done today. As the state of Linux apps business progress, there will be ever less reason for customers to play Microsoft's game.

What's a whurly?

Is it like a swirly? Oh, it's William Hurley. Of course. That non-famous guy I've never heard of before.

This synopsis annoys me because it is written as if we're all just supposed to know what the hell a whurly and a BMC are.

Duh

Free R&D.

No competition = stagnation

Microsoft needs open source because established companies cannot compete with them in the "normal" market outside of the web (Google and Yahoo) where Microsoft has historically played catch-up. Open source levels the field, and so you have things like Firefox. Firefox forced Microsoft to come out of their "it's good enough and no one has a choice anyway" stagnation. The inevitable comparisons between Apache and IIS5 ended up resulting in IIS6. When Microsoft feels the pressure, they are a better company with better products.

Arguably this is not true for all their markets, such as development tools and Office, which historically have not been too contested (not lately at least) and yet have not resulted in the same stagnation.

Many people want open source to succeed, because one of the end results of that is a better Microsoft. I've always included myself in that group.

As for the article, I think it's a good read for all the "LOLOL M$ is TEH AFRAID OF THE GNU/PENGUIN ETC" crowd:

Microsoft doesn't fear open source; it fears what the competition can do with it.

Microsoft fears IBM and Novell and CA. It doesn't "fear" Ubuntu or Gentoo or Torvalds. That's the key issue that RMS managed to miss (or probably chose to ignore for the oomph effect) in his incisive analysis of the "Halloween documents".

Re:No competition = stagnation

They realize open source is their future.
Sure, Microsoft sometimes makes it easy for us to hate them, but aren't as disconnected from the pulse of the open source community as you may think. Linux is causing issues for them in the market, and they're working hard to keep up. They didn't build their empire by not planning ahead--even the most closed-minded executive in Redmond realizes open source is in their future.

Notice how author of TFA doesn't bother to back up his assertion?

I would have though that reality backs up the opposite: MS doesn't want to open their code or specs.

Right now, they're giving the EU a tough time over specs,
I can't imagine how "They realize open source is their future".

WHAT?

That's like:
7 reasons a mouse likes a cat
7 reasons why oil likes water
7 reasons why intelligent design likes pasta
or
7 reasons why office users like clippy

Hopelessly naive

Open source is not the threat; Linux is.

Um, no. Both are threats to Microsoft. Linux, as a product, is obvious.

Open source, as a larger concept, is a threat to Microsoft because it is the antithesis of their power base. Microsoft has gained and held its control over the industry by clutching tightly its file formats and protocols. The only reason we ever got Office compatibility and the SMB protocol in the Open Source realm is because of careful reverse engineering and the hope that Microsoft's patent lawyers would keep their guns holstered.

I think Microsoft is realizing that the problem isn't the source, which is eroding as a base of power, but the software patents. On the one hand, they hold enough to crush pretty much anybody they choose. At the same time, they've already been victimized once by Eolas. The Novell deal shows how reluctant Microsoft is to really enforce their software patents. It's as much a defensive action for Microsoft as it is for Novell. Obviously, Novell can step out from under that Sword of Damocles. Microsoft, however, by not filing a straight-up patent suit, avoids throwing the first punch in a barroom full of patent trolls, all of whom are itching for a brawl.

Heh...

I like this new form of journalism being pioneered here: "X is going to be speaking at some event and I will now hold forth on some completely random topic that might come up!" One of the more vigorous submitters then follows it up with "X spoke at some meeting and I will now hold forth on some completely random topic that didn't come up!"

Loves?

The blog article is weak on a number of important points. Open source is part of the landscape and Microsoft is adapting to it. That does not mean that Microsoft "loves" open source. Microsoft could probably be said to "love" any vertical-market application that adds value to the platforms that it offers. It matters not a jot whether said applications are open-source or closed-source.

OpenOffice poses more of a long-term threat to Microsoft than Linux, because Microsoft's revenue stream for Office is less subject to margin erosion than its operating system revenues. Firefox also poses a threat insofar as a common browser platform that is OS independent undermines control of the desktop. Windows and IE provide control of the market, while Exchange and Office provide the revenue. Competition on any of the four fronts is taken seriously.

Linux not the threat; the GNU GPL is

Were the kernel Linux licensed under the BSD license, MS wouldn't consider Linux a threat. It's because of the *license* that the kernel Linux has that Microsoft is scared silly of it. That goes for anything else that's released under the GPL--Samba, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla/Firefox, KDE, *anything*. Why? Because they can't just lift GPL code without providing source. That's why their Services for UNIX is based on BSD, not GNU/Linux. It's also why Apple used a lot of FreeBSD code for the core of Mac OS X (the non-GUI parts).

Microsoft has made it clear, many times, that they consider the GPL a "cancer" and "Communist". They've also said that "we're not against 'open source'. We like BSD, that's fine. What we don't like is the GPL."

The GPL is their enemy because the GPL proactively defends our freedom. Is the BSD license a Free Software license? You bet! But it doesn't proactively defend our freedom like the GPL does, and it is that characteristic of the GPL that frightens Microsoft to its core. That's also why they're fighting so desperately against the OpenDocument file formats; to Microsoft, actual, true Freedom for users is a very, very scary thing. [mailto]

One reason why it's all a lie

Loss of Control! It's rather simple, it's about the loss of control because without the ability to control the APIs which are getting used most often on Windows, they lose control of the platform. Why did Microsoft go totally 180 out on how they used the Java under license from Sun Micro? What about why they were willing to purchase expensive Netscape contracts and also pay ISPs to push MS IE over Netscape Navigator? Remember, Netscape Navigator included CORBA components, Java, and JavaScript among other technologies out of Microsofts control. It's all about keeping control of the APIs, the developers, and therefore protecting the Microsoft Windows economy.

So there are no reasons why Microsoft Loves open source other than to find ways to "Love it to death". IMO.

LoB

Love?

Like in the bend-it-over kind of way?

Open Source, the Web, Interoperability, and Micros

Guess the odd one out?

Reason Eight

Because people spend their time working on open source instead of the product to beat Microsoft. So Steve Jobs the second comes along today. He's going to make an OS that's going to destroy Windows. He looks for his best coder. However coders don't need a Steve Jobs to make software anymore. They can just work on Linux to get their coding fix. They don't need a guy with a vision because they have Linux Torvalds to follow and continue to lead them.

Let's face it, Linux is not going to destroy Windows, there's too many issues with it. People have already seen Linux and made their opinions then. We can change them but it's an uphill battle. The in fighting, the "hard core linux guys" vs. the Red hats vs. the Slackware vs. everyone else has ruined what little chance Linux has. The very fact that if Linux takes over, it won't be one version but every version and it will all create work for the end user means it's going to be problematic for it to even gain market share.

Open source diverts and directs a lot of time for the people who could take on Microsoft's products and that makes Microsoft happy. In theory it COULD make for a better product because everyone can be working towards one goal. But in reality every programmer has an opinion on how best to go about the assault on the big MS and with out true leadership (Torvalds isn't looking to lead the revolution, Stallman is but he's as polarizing as can be, hell Stallman will scare most corporations back to Microsoft's loving arms with his free software talk.) Even the term open source scares businesses and executives. It's a good thing after you understand it but there's a lot of parts of it that Microsoft can whisper in people's ears to scare them into using the Microsoft alternative.

So Microsoft loves the fact open source is here because if anything it's destroyed more genius ideas than they could probably fight on their own in a number of ways.

He's right about one thing...

MS isn't afraid of Open Source, rather than linux. Open source linux will never have the support needed to support a mass quantity such as windows. The reason being, Support costs money.. marketing costs money.. and Open Source linux really can't handle that. In order to support issues and have a central system for drivers, updates and such... you've got to have some type of unity, income and government.

The open source community has a hard time deciding on factors, due to no central foundation for on time decisions. It's tons of different people acting for their own reasons to get their box to work correctly. Drivers aren't made because they need to be made, just yet. Not everyone is required to make drivers for their products or make their product compatible with linux, because it seldomly affects business.

I'm not saying that linux isn't going to jump ahead at any point, I'm saying that Open Source linux will never have the power to, when it hasn't got the funds to do so.

The one thing he didn't mention is, Microsoft has borrowed (I know, people have other words for it.) technologies and ideas from OS's and apps across the globe. They already have a unix subsystem that's been in place for years as an addition. What makes anyone think that one of the richest technological businesses on the planet, WOULDN'T create their own Linux-Based operating system if they came close to being overturned?

Think about it.

They have the funds in place. They have the support. Linux has always been harsh competition and has proven it's worthy.

WHY would they not do it?

You can't tell me that somewhere in a basement in Redmond, men aren't typing away with unix code, creating a small OS that is the beginning of a back-up plan for MS when fit hits the shan.

THAT is why they're not concerned. It's not just because it's a huge threat.. it's because at any time, they can write up their own flavor of linux like anyone else does.. and they've got the money to support it.

Then they won't mind this...

If they love open source so much then I'm sure they didn't mind THIS [softpedia.com] at all! *sarcasm*

Catagorized List:

1. We can steal code!
2. We can steal ideas!
3. We can steal design!
4. We can release a version that doesn't turn off noobies!
5. We can make a proprietary competitor and wipe the original FOSS off the map with our hegemony!
6. We can put out a press release about how we invented something again!
7. We can steal code!

the real 7 reasons

1) free code
2) free development
3) innovation with low overhead
4) goals of stability to achieve
5) something to get baldy charged up before keynotes
6) hackers to blame
7) Novel^H^H^H Back-stabbing CEOs that will sign patent agreements

My comment refuting his points

I posted a comment there on his page, refuting his arguments. It wasn't too hard to rationally shoot most of them down. I was able to refute 6 of 7, but one of them I just wasn't familiar enough with. Here's the comment if you're interested:
----------------

I can't take you very seriously because there is a lot of misdirection and hand-waving in your article. I will give you credit that I didn't see any outright lies, which Microsoft directly uses, though. Here I'll point out some problems with your points.

"They include open source code in their products."
You bring up the TCP/IP implementation as an example. That's not a good idea on your part because it's exactly the example people use to point out why Microsoft likes to let other people come up with good stuff under the BSD license and then selfishly take it with no thank-yous or giving in return. When it comes to a mutual sharing license that they can't take selfish advantage of, like the GPL, they spit venom, lies, quasi-legal lobbying interference with government action, violation of their court-ordered code of conduct from their anti-trust conviction, etc., etc. So basically, your first point illustrates that they just like code that other people open without restrictions so they can just snatch it.

"They support open source vendors."
I won't say a lot here because I'm not familiar with these Microsoft "programs created to test and verify open source applications on Microsoft platforms". If they do that, fair enough.

"They benefit from open source everyday."
It's called FUD. Have you read the content of the "free press" they pay for? That's kind of a twisted way to look at things to say that your competitors benefit you by giving you the opportunity to smear them with falsehoods. You're not understanding what the alternative situation was to this "battle with open source" they've been waging in the press. Before open source was maturing, Microsoft didn't have a big war in the press and had close to 100% market share. Everyone just kept buying it because they had never heard of anything else. Now Microsoft is having to viciously attack to slow the slide of their market share. Open source isn't doing them any favors there.

"They open source code."
Ah, UNIX tools for Windows. This is beating the ground where the dead horse rotted away several years ago. They did a small token action on a minor product most people don't use once, and we're supposed to be reminded of that over and over? That hardly seems like strong evidence to make it one of the "Seven Reasons Microsoft Loves Open Source". That's weak, man.

"They are adopting open source culture."
You're not recognizing what this is. Culture means actually doing something, which they're not. This is co-opting the language of open source to try to pretend to be something good, while remaining the wolf in sheep's clothing. It's the same with their proprietary data-dump of their new MS Office format, which they have ironically called "Microsoft Office Open XML". They want to have that word Open associated with them, even though the format is very closed and does not contain specs enough for anyone else to use it.

"They aren't threatened by open source."
Well this looks like a good place to continue the talk about the office document formats. They are threatened at least as much, if not more, by other forms of openness than just by Linux. Have you kept up with Microsoft's conduct in Massachusetts over the document format decision? They have been putting out some of their most blatant lies to convince them to use the Microsoft document formats, rather than go to a neutral document format that can be used by anyone, including Microsoft if they wanted to stop their tantrums long enough to do it. Read some of Andy Updegrove's blog to find out some of the story about that, including how they fed a false character assasination story on Peter Quinn to Boston Globe reporter Steve Kurkjian. The story was published before they even

"Love"? GMAB. A Naive List...

To use the term 'Love' here is incredibly naive. MS would obviously 'love' to destroy Open Source by any means possible. They only become involved with it when forced, when they can make a buck off it, or when it saves them time and effort. There isn't the remotest attitude of benevolence. This guy may well be laughed off the stage.

But enough from me. Be sure to read the comments below the article on the source page. They are very insightful and diverse.

"Open Source, the Web, Interoperability, and ..."

'Open Source, the Web, Interoperability, and Microsoft' Also AKA "The Brave, the Astounding, the Incredibly Useful, and The Scorned"

Geek Wannabes

Ok please, naming your convention after Knuth's fictitious assembly language? How dorky can you get? Whaddya bet there's just a bunch of C# programmers there, who don't even know how their computer works?

ehh

MS is large enough to love open source and try to crush it. Any one MS employee might be believed to hold this position, but as an amoral corporation MS should be trusted just as far as it can be thrown (and no, that makes no sense at all).

threats

Microsoft see OSS as a threat: that's their problem, not ours. OSS has never been - and never should be - in the business to compete with anyone. OSS is here to produce better software. Period. If distributions like RedHat or IBM want to go toe-to-toe against MS, that's their problem.

Really, any press release or fluff from OSS collaborators should be ignored. Any OS release should be examined for goodness - copied - then ignored. Any attempts to say that OSS is here to "wipe-out" MS should be ignored. OSS can never do that. Those people who whinge about OSS *not* competing with word, access, oh, get a life.

free press?

Free Press? Are you joking me?

What the hell kind of free press does MS need? Anyone out there not using windows because they've never heard of it? What a really dumb thing to say. Free press does you no good if you're the market default.

This is why techies don't run businesses.

Everyone stop, breathe, and let's look at it. I allow someone else to think of a possibly good idea and begin to build the model. I can look at the idea, refine or change it as I want to. Then I can integrate it into my strategy. EVERY large technology and scientific company in America (and actually the world) does this. How do you think the drug and biotech companies work. The only thing MSFT did was get smart about open source. If you can possibly profit off something, then why fight it. Technology is great but BUSINESS turns the world. One more thing, to people in technology, open source is "Free". To the CEO at a company that sells (insert product here) it is not. I sell my product and don't really care about developing the next driver or what have you.

The Seven Reasons Really Are

1. Fragmentation 2. Fragmentation 3. Fragmentation 4. Fragmentation 5. Fragmentation 6. Fragmentation 7. Fragmentation

underinformed

This guy doesnt even know the difference between Unix and Linux, how can he comment on open source?