Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft IT

Microsoft's Open Source Guru Faces Tough Fight 432

Posted by samzenpus
from the in-hostile-territory dept.
coondoggie writes "Microsoft's Sam Ramji is like a turkey knocking on Thanksgiving's door. Ramji has the unenviable task of stretching his neck out into the open source world as Microsoft's representative. On top of it, his employer has preheated the oven with years of hubris, sleights of hand and broken promises. Ramji's Sisyphean task was evident last week in Portland at the Open Source Conference (OSCon) and will likely be fuel for chatter at next week's LinuxWorld gathering in San Francisco."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft's Open Source Guru Faces Tough Fight

Comments Filter:
  • by suso (153703) * on Thursday July 31, 2008 @12:11AM (#24412185) Homepage Journal

    Microsoft is good at winning the game when people are agressive towards them. Which I know its very easy to get hostile towards them. But they are somewhat lost when another group is their host and they are not in control. So we should be welcoming, give them a drink of the kool-aid and treat them like one of the gang. Its going to be hard and we'll have to keep an eye out for deception, but I think we should start playing nicer with them and hope that they do the same. Perhaps Microsoft would see the light and become friendlier to open source and open standards. Unlikely, but so was getting Excel working under Linux through Wine if you asked someone 10 years ago.

    In the end, open source is simply a better model for software development and its a lot more impervious to threats than proprietary software is. Businesses just don't get that. In a business, the software focus is on making money. In open source, the software focus is on quality and empowering the end user. In the end, open source and the user will win. Heck, we're already winning, Microsoft is interested in open source (regardless of the reasons).

    Don't throw arrows. Be diplomatic.

    • by snl2587 (1177409) on Thursday July 31, 2008 @12:15AM (#24412213)

      Don't throw arrows. Be diplomatic.

      You're right, that would be ineffective without a bow. Throw spears instead.

      • by Harmonious Botch (921977) * on Thursday July 31, 2008 @12:30AM (#24412281) Homepage Journal

        Don't throw arrows. Be diplomatic.

        You're right, that would be ineffective without a bow. Throw spears instead.

        No. Throw chairs!

        • No, no.... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by crhylove (205956)

          I hear what you're saying, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!" But I really think we can beat 'em. Have you tried the latest Ubuntu?

        • by moro_666 (414422) <(kulminaator) (at) (gmail.com)> on Thursday July 31, 2008 @04:06AM (#24413369) Homepage

          Stop throwing around arrows, spears, chairs :)

          Throw a BS-Filter :)

            Seriously, every time one of the big closed source giants come around to open source, the find a "rebel" from their ranks, the person looks like the ultimate "open source fanatic" from in their own ranks.

            Usually the person is a sleek, charming bs-machine. His goal is not to get the company into a open-source-everyone-happy state, he's a peacemaker, a showman. They tell you how much the company wants to move toward open source and how hard it is to do it. They give out empty promises and while they are at it, they actually "consume" you :)

            Stop wasting your time on empty hopes about them coming to opensource world and taking you to nirvana. Get to the nirvana yourself, you'll beat them for sure.

            Resistance is futile, You will be assimilated -- this did not come from any borgs from out of space, this came from microsoft, oracle, corel and god knows whom else.

            my -0x42 cents.

        • by frietbsd (943773) on Thursday July 31, 2008 @04:54AM (#24413577)

          No. Throw chairs!

          Who is the current chair at Microsoft?

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Yvan256 (722131)

        I know the perfect amazon tribe [slashdot.org] to shoot arrows!

      • by clarkkent09 (1104833) on Thursday July 31, 2008 @01:05AM (#24412483)
        Ramji has the unenviable task of stretching his neck out into the open source world as Microsoft's representative

        I think the the weapon you are looking for is an axe
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 31, 2008 @12:23AM (#24412247)

      I think we should start playing nicer with them and hope that they do the same.

      That's what Neville Chamberlain thought, too.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Odysseus has left a wooden horse! Victory is ours!

    • by plantman-the-womb-st (776722) on Thursday July 31, 2008 @12:53AM (#24412413)
      Dear mods, this isn't funny. It's the correct approach. When your enemy agrees to play nice, playing nice back doesn't mean assume they are friendly, it just means play nice.
    • by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) on Thursday July 31, 2008 @12:58AM (#24412439)
      Well I may not have been the biggest fan of his last few movies, Sam Raimi has done a lot of nerdy work and deserves our respect, although I'll be damned if I can remember when he started working for Microsoft, I guess Spiderman 3 really was that bad.
    • by Bruce Perens (3872) * <bruce@perens.com> on Thursday July 31, 2008 @12:58AM (#24412445) Homepage Journal
      So far, we've won the game because they've been aggressive to us. And this is not talking about the distant past, the OOXML debacle is still going on and as far as I can tell they committed real, actionable fraud [openmalaysiablog.com] in connection with it which has gone unprosecuted.

      I think we should fight Microsoft, not Sam Ramji. We should just make it clear that Sam works for a company with a monopoly conviction and a long record of dirty fighting.

      Microsoft's joining Apache, to a great extent, as an anti-Linux play. They still can't stand the GPL, it's too fair for them, but they think they can take some of the oxygen from Linux by being more of a platform for Apache-style software. And the Apache license lets them "embrace and enhance".

      Don't give up now, folks. Only your vigilance and your willingness to point out when Microsoft plays dirty tricks will keep them from getting away with even more of that.

      Bruce

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by ianare (1132971)
        Microsoft licensing under apache but especially LGPL [networkworld.com] is a small miracle.
        From what I understand, the apache license and the gpl are compatible now - in the sense that something licensed under Apache2 can be brought into GPLv3.
        Nevertheless their past actions will make it very difficult for open source developers to have any kind of trust.

        If we create great PHP support and we create excitement among PHP developers then there is opportunity for Windows Servers, Ramji said.

        :: shudders ::
        Just what the world needs, more windows servers ...

        • by Bruce Perens (3872) * <bruce@perens.com> on Thursday July 31, 2008 @02:07AM (#24412799) Homepage Journal
          LGPL isn't GPL. You can still "embrace and enhance" LGPL code. GPL is the real test.
    • by jthill (303417)

      So the choice is supposed to be between being aggressive towards Microsoft and starting to "play nicer with them"?

      How about a third option: wake up.

      Don't throw arrows. Be diplomatic.

      Good advice. Diplomats are not known for their trusting souls.

    • by timmarhy (659436) on Thursday July 31, 2008 @01:33AM (#24412601)
      "In open source, the software focus is on quality"

      No, it's on building your own project which replicates another piece of software exactly but under another license or with some tiny change. Then pissing everyone off on your mailing list and having 3 groups of developers fork on you, each taking the direction you "should" have taken. after the ego cools off all the mini projects release hacked scripts to allow migration, which no one can get to work. When users complain you tell them to RTFM, and that it's all very simple and if they don't like it they can use MS products (which they end up doing)

      • by jcr (53032) <[jcr] [at] [mac.com]> on Thursday July 31, 2008 @02:16AM (#24412833) Journal

        This is one of those posts where "insightful" and "troll" both apply.

        -jcr

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by cp.tar (871488)

        I'm afraid that right now I have no choice but to agree.

        For instance, a few days ago I have decided to help the KDE project by picking up the translation; the Croatian translation team has been inactive for the past year or so.
        I have found several people willing to translate, too; in addition, I would undertake to make it all consistent by designing a (semi-)controlled language, as it would combine well with my graduation thesis.

        When it became apparent that my views on translation were rather different fro

    • by EvanED (569694) <evaned@nOspAm.gmail.com> on Thursday July 31, 2008 @02:07AM (#24412797)

      In the end, open source is simply a better model for software development and its a lot more impervious to threats than proprietary software is. Businesses just don't get that. In a business, the software focus is on making money. In open source, the software focus is on quality and empowering the end user.

      Or... more likely they do get it. (At least to the extent that you reveal in your post.) OSS is a better model for software development, but that doesn't mean it's a better business model. A business's goal isn't (and at least a large part of me says "shouldn't be") quality and empowering the end user except to the extent that they make business sense, and it is (and "should be") to make money. (There are limits to the "should" parts of that; e.g. violating the law or human rights or something like that.)

      So is closed or open a better business model? I have no idea. But I suspect neither do you.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by speedtux (1307149)

      In the end, open source is simply a better model for software development and its a lot more impervious to threats than proprietary software is.

      Yes.

      Don't throw arrows. Be diplomatic.

      Why? What possible reason is there to be "diplomatic" towards Microsoft? The company has been rude and arrogant towards anybody they have dealt with. They have cheated Americans out of many billions of dollars through bundling, tying, and their illegal monopoly. Was Microsoft "diplomatic" about the companies and jobs they de

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Phroggy (441)

      So we should be welcoming, give them a drink of the kool-aid and treat them like one of the gang. Its going to be hard and we'll have to keep an eye out for deception, but I think we should start playing nicer with them and hope that they do the same.

      "If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the LORD will reward you." - Proverbs 25:21-22 (NIV) [biblegateway.com]

      I've always liked that passage. :-)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by houghi (78078)

      Be nice and give him free kool-aid? Sounds to me you want to piss him off, because he comes for the free beer.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by somersault (912633)

      Perhaps Microsoft would see the light and become friendlier to open source and open standards. Unlikely, but so was getting Excel working under Linux through Wine if you asked someone 10 years ago.

      Are you saying the WINE project has had help from Microsoft? I wasn't aware of anything like that going on.

      What possible use is their in having MS on your side anyway? All they've demonstrated themselves to be good at is writing consistently shitty software. They're a joke. All major business held back from using Vista "until SP1 comes out", and then by the time that it did come out, most still didn't see any benefit in it. I'm quite happy that some of the world has shown that it understands that the latest

  • Shades of Gray? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gbulmash (688770) * <semi_famous@yah o o . com> on Thursday July 31, 2008 @12:12AM (#24412191) Homepage Journal
    From TFA:

    The first questioner from the audience wanted to know what it would take for Microsoft not to claim patent infringement violations in open source code.

    I'd like to know what it would take for Microsoft to actually back up those claims with proof in a public forum. But that's probably a question for Steve Ballmer, since he's the one who seems to flog the patent FUD.

    OTOH, I have contracted at Microsoft (once as a dev doing an intranet site for a testing lab, once being the editor in charge of a couple of sections of the MSW homepage), and it's an interesting culture there. It's not the Death Star with Ballmer walking around, periodically strangling people with his mind just to show who's boss.

    In a company that big you can't escape the control freaks and evidence of The Peter Principle [wikipedia.org], but you also have people there like my manager on the intranet site contract, who was the best manager I've had in the 23 years since I started having managers. For all the greed and arrogance people here like to claim go into Microsoft products, there are a lot of people who are there because they love what they do and Microsoft gives them the opportunity to get paid well for doing it. I met some awesome people at Microsoft, people I really respect.

    I switched to Mac to avoid Vista. I use NeoOffice instead of MS Office. But I can say that despite some of the aura of badness Microsoft gives off as a company, there are people there who are truly dedicated to the company being a good citizen, putting out good products, and getting along with others. The people who give Ramji a hard time really haven't given him a chance.

    • Re:Shades of Gray? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by digitalunity (19107) <digitalunityNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Thursday July 31, 2008 @12:55AM (#24412419) Homepage

      Hasn't Microsoft trained us over time with a reverse skinner box approach, by offering cooperation and failing to deliver on the open principles they committed to?

      Microsoft has earned the negative attitude they receive with years of practice, hard work and dedication. It's like posting at -1. It takes time to dig yourself out of it and Microsoft can't just create a new account and start over.

      If Ramji really wants to be taken seriousyl, he should be prepared to be received poorly for some time to come and take that in stride.

    • Re:Shades of Gray? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Thursday July 31, 2008 @01:05AM (#24412485)

      I'm sure there's tons of really great people working at Microsoft. It's easy to put a kind face on Microsoft when you think of the examples of nice people who work there. But when it comes to business, Microsoft is not that nice guy.

    • by Animats (122034) on Thursday July 31, 2008 @01:15AM (#24412519) Homepage

      It's not the Death Star with Ballmer walking around, periodically strangling people with his mind just to show who's boss.

      That's what Apple is like.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by cp.tar (871488)

        It's not the Death Star with Ballmer walking around, periodically strangling people with his mind just to show who's boss.

        That's what Apple is like.

        Ballmer in Apple?
        Things are worse than I'd thought.

        *dumping stock*

    • Re:Shades of Gray? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ianare (1132971) on Thursday July 31, 2008 @01:35AM (#24412623)
      Unfortnutely the good actions of 'the little people' are completely overshadowed by the greed and arrogance of the top decision makers. As with many global companies, and countries for that matter, most of the people that get to the top are, or become, twisted and evil, even if the general population is really quite nice once you get to know them.
  • "Sucks to be you!"

  • Herculean, surely? Maybe even Gargantuan.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by NoobixCube (1133473)

      I like it. Sisyphus has a nice... playful ring to it!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by langelgjm (860756)
      I thought the same thing. Sisyphean makes is sound like he just can't win. Of course, that might be accurate.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by grcumb (781340)

        I thought the same thing. Sisyphean makes is sound like he just can't win. Of course, that might be accurate.

        Given that Microsoft has traditionally played the eagle[*] to FOSS' Prometheus [wikipedia.org], I'd guess that there are more than a few people who don't want Microsoft ever to win.

        -----

        [*] Microsoft actually thinks it's Zeus in this legend, but that's a whole 'nother story.

  • by ndnspongebob (942859) on Thursday July 31, 2008 @12:34AM (#24412305)
    We are open source, we accept all code but we are also a community. This community must be respected. Corporate entities will run all over us and then want to be friends. Must we lie down and take it or resist and be defiant because we are the movement? I know what I am saying is controversial but I say it with a reason. Bow once and bow a thousand more times. Microsoft is the main enemy, defeat him and we will conquer all. I may be in the few, but I say rise because the time is now and it is time to strike.
    • by plantman-the-womb-st (776722) on Thursday July 31, 2008 @01:04AM (#24412475)
      Wow, no idea what you are trying to say, it spanks of rabble rousing. In the end, what exactly does open source deliver? That is the question. It's being asked by a lot of people. And we as a community need an answer, which we don't actually have. A philosophy is not an answer. The proles will look to the MS shill for an answer. The question should be, what will we give him to take back, beads and trinkets?
      • by FireFury03 (653718) <slashdot&nexusuk,org> on Thursday July 31, 2008 @07:26AM (#24414195) Homepage

        what exactly does open source deliver?

        It depends who you are:

        End users:
        It provides software at no cost. Now, some users may need support, which will cost them, but the chances are they don't need support on *all* their software (i.e. they might want to be able to phone someone up when the operating system breaks, but they are happy with having no support for their word processor.

        Also, my experience as a software developer tells me that Open Source _code_ is usually of higher quality than proprietary code - it may not be as obvious to the end user as it is to a developer but I do honestly believe that in (most but not all) cases Free software is more secure, stable and feature-rich.

        Another bonus, especially for businesses using the software, is that if you find that you need a feature you can go and contract a developer to write it for you instead of being held to ransom (or ignored) by the original vendor you got the software from.

        Small to mid-sized computer businesses:
        Businesses can use Free software to provide solutions to their customers - they can make money by selling the services, rather than the software.

        For example, if a customer asks for some kind of system you have 3 options:
        1. Write the system from scratch.
        2. Licence a proprietary system.
        3. Use a Free system.
        Now, (1) is probably going to be a lot more expensive, so that is out. (2) and (3) are more or less comparable at this point, so long as they both have the features you need. Some time later the customer can come back and ask for some new feature - if you originally picked (2) then you may be screwed, whereas if you picked (3) you can add the feature and charge the customer for your time.

        The "services" business model has, since the dawn of time, also had that subscription model that MS wants.

        Huge software monopolies (e.g. Microsoft)
        This is a lot more problematic - the Free software business model prohibits the abuse of a monopoly position, purely because someone else is always free to compete with an identical (or improved) product but with a lower cost or more favourable contractual terms. If you are producing Free software, you can't just put all the competition out of business and then stop improving your product for years (much as MS did for things like IE) - you will always have competition and staying ahead of the competition takes constant effort, but is good for the consumers as they see constant improvements instead of stagnation.

        If Microsoft completely embrace the Free software business model, they _will_ lose their monopoly position, so I can't see them doing that until they have already seriously lost that position anyway. Similarly, from a business perspective they need to be careful with interoperability since they don't want to promote the idea of replacing Microsoft products with competing ones. But what they do want is to enable Microsoft products to interoperate with the competing products in situations where people would be using the competing products anyway (and thus would avoid the MS products if they didn't interoperate).

        Microsoft's monopoly position sucks for MS's competitors, MS's customers and MS's competitors' customers (who struggle to interoperate with MS's software and customers). However, their monopoly position is good for _them_ and they will protect it at all costs - to do so, they need to walk a very fine line.

        However, even if MS decided to 100% embrace Free software (which, as mentioned above, they won't), they would still have a hard fight convincing the Free software community to accept them. This is because they have spent years time and time again making promises to the Free software community and then stabbing them in the back at the first opportunity - it will take them a lot of time and effort to prove that this isn't just another example of this behaviour (if indeed it isn't).

        A philosophy is not an answer.

        Pure philosophy is not the answer, but that philosophy has survived for a long time because it gives real, solid benefits for a lot of people.

    • by Shihar (153932) on Thursday July 31, 2008 @01:06AM (#24412489)

      Corporate entities will run all over us and then want to be friends. Must we lie down and take it or resist and be defiant because we are the movement? I know what I am saying is controversial but I say it with a reason.

      You rebel! An open source person with an anti-corporate message!? I don't believe it. You must have massive balls. This reminds me of the time when Greenday stood up against the evils of Bush. A pop-punk band speaking out against conservatives was pretty progressive and unusual at the time, but they to pererviered and finally won the community to their side. Your fight will be long and hard, but I hope that in the end you too convince the wider open source community that Microsoft is the devil.

      You are a brave soul to be so bold with such a hostile pro-corporate crowd. Standing up for what you believe in, with no fear that the open source community might respond with hostility and skepticism is a bold act. I salute you for going against the grain and taking such a controversial "Microsoft is bad" stand. If only there were more brave men like you.

    • by Minwee (522556) <dcr@neverwhen.org> on Thursday July 31, 2008 @01:53AM (#24412717) Homepage

      I know what I am saying is controversial

      I think you misspelled "incoherent". Just goes to show that you shouldn't always rely on the spell chequer for everything.

    • Microsoft is a single entity in one sense, but it is also a community, or a political organisation, if you will, comprised of lots of people with differing agendas and varying levels of "evilness". Adhering to a militant stance as a stated policy and assuming defiance as a fixed position is not just very lazy, it is short sighted, counter-productive and stupid.

      Sure, it makes everything easy now. You don't have to think about what your "enemy" is doing, just reject everything as bad because it comes from Red

  • by ocularDeathRay (760450) on Thursday July 31, 2008 @12:47AM (#24412377) Journal
    why can't we just ignore them? I mean seriously, if there is one thing we (oss guys) can agree on... SURELY this is it. For many years, hate for M$ has been the only thing that the free software community could agree on.

    why can't the entire free software crowd just stand up and say "No thanks", we aren't interested in what you have to say.

    if you think that M$ will ever help free software in any meaningful way, you obviously haven't been paying attention over the past couple decades.

    there is good news in this though. M$ is obviously noticing that every day there are people installing linux who used to use window$. They know that linux on the desktop is closing the gap and many other companies stand to profit from it. After years of pretending OSS didn't exist, or worse yet, attacking it in underhanded ways, they don't have a piece of the action. This whole M$/oss thing, just means they are realizing there is a chance that maybe OSS really IS the next big thing.

    My prediction is that a huge company with unlimited resources like google will package up a nice, distro, call it something flashy, advertise the hell out of it, and give it away for free. I am well aware of the options that already exist, but the average person is not. It takes flashy marketing to capture the market.

    how can M$ possibly compete with other companies who come in at a price point nearly $0, with a better product, a good ad campaign, AND profit margins of nearly 100%? They can't. Someday the house of cards will fall. They know it, they think, they can adapt by getting involved with OSS. They will fail because we hate them.
  • Oh Poor Ramji (Score:5, Insightful)

    by twmcneil (942300) on Thursday July 31, 2008 @01:14AM (#24412517)
    Poor, poor Ramji. I feel so sorry for him. Getting his head cut off and all. Boo Hoo. TFA is pure Microsoft FUD. Yeah, Microsoft is trying to get along with Open Source. Sure.

    Microsoft wants to kill Open Source and don't ever forget that.

    Hey Ramji, after all your employer has done to promote Open Source like backing SCO and buying off ISO, why don't you just crawl under a rock someplace and quit wasting our air. Just go cash that big check and live in some kind of peace and harmony with your bought-off ass.
  • While filming Army of Darkness Sam Ramji defied conventional filmmaking, keeping costs to a minimum by utilizing a variety of improvised measures. Rather than invest a ton of money into a specialized dollie, for example, Mr. Ramji got a few extras to help carry his camera crew in scenes of the movie. It *totally* figures that he's an open source dude, you know? I didn't know he was working for Micro$oft now, though...
  • They're coming. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Zombie Ryushu (803103) on Thursday July 31, 2008 @01:58AM (#24412745)

    They are coming. Their are quite a few of them, but they are coming. Remember what I said about "Preventing the last year of open source and Linux?" While Linux is strong now, do realize that we got a break.

    In Vista, I expected the Harbinger of Linux's Doom. I expected another Windows 2000. I was pleasantly surprised how bad Vista turned out.

    We got a break, we got lucky, and Linux will survive to fight another day, but the monsters are still out there. At this point, Linux needs to focus on combating OSX. Apple is as lethal a threat as M$ is.

  • by Locutus (9039) on Thursday July 31, 2008 @03:01AM (#24413073)

    Look at the guy they hired to run their Linux Lab, Hilfe or something like that is his name. They made him up to be a friend to OSS but then he got put in charge of their anti-linux marketing or the likes.

    20+ years of watching these guys tell me it is business as usual for MSFT. Windows is their baby and nothing is going to threaten it. Linux and OSS is too compelling for many of Microsofts customers so Microsoft must get its hands dirty and shove its way into that area enough to figure out how to pull those customers back to Windows.

    Their business is Windows and maintaining that products position. Software which runs on Windows and some other platform is a threat. This is how it has always been so why would anyone think they are playing any other game? Twenty years folks, twenty years. Just look at ODF and MS-OOXML for proof of how far they'll go to protect their position.

    this new guy should not be given the time of day IMO.

    LoB

  • by Nitewing98 (308560) on Thursday July 31, 2008 @03:18AM (#24413153) Homepage

    We should not trust Microsoft, no matter how nice their liaison to the FOSS community, until they drop their claims that Linux distros infringe their patents. Either they need to specify WHICH patents or withdraw the claim entirely.

    If we give in to anything less, we're selling out and lending cred to M$, not to mention allowing them to make money off of FOSS through their "licensing" program.

  • by deckardt (989092) on Thursday July 31, 2008 @03:22AM (#24413195)
    Do these three words sound familiar? embrace extend extinguish
  • Actions. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by miffo.swe (547642) <daniel DOT hedblom AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday July 31, 2008 @03:49AM (#24413293) Homepage Journal

    Until there are actions made by Microsoft that benefits open source in general everything Microsoft does in OSS should be taken with a large dose of skeptisism. Its all PR.

    As long as their goal is to obliterate any competition, kill partners any time it gives a benefit and screw their customers over they shouldnt be allowed to be in our community. While we play nice they spend their time trying to come up with new ways of controlling or killing the open source movement.

  • by AthenianGadfly (798721) on Thursday July 31, 2008 @04:14AM (#24413409)

    The open source world is also ready to fight if necessary.

    Stallman is waiting. [xkcd.com]

  • by Z80a (971949) on Thursday July 31, 2008 @05:58AM (#24413845)
    microsoft is capitalist,they go where they think the money is.

    if you give em hard proof of a more profitable future in OSS,they will run to it faster than a young puppy chasing a rubber ball.
    • Bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jotaeleemeese (303437) on Thursday July 31, 2008 @07:20AM (#24414171) Homepage Journal

      They have broken the law, cheated on business partners, used underhanded tactics in the OS to stifle competition.

      That has nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism does not work without the respect and adherence to the rule of law, and needless to say, one is immoral because one chooses to, not because one is a capitalist.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by lysse (516445)

        Capitalism does not work without the respect and adherence to the rule of law

        So why do the most successful companies keep falling foul of those laws, and companies which are morally scrupulous tend to make somewhat lesser profits?

The only way to learn a new programming language is by writing programs in it. - Brian Kernighan

Working...