What Should Microsoft's Open Source Strategy Be? 1010
JWinterboy asks: "I'm guessing that everyone here has a valid criticism of Microsoft's attacks on, and approach towards the Open Source model. To me, that begs the question of what we think would be an "appropriate" reaction from Microsoft towards the Open Source model. It doesn't have a service arm, so IBM's approach isn't really viable. At the same time, non-service related business models haven't fared very well.
What would we like to see Microsoft do? How can it work with the Open Source community, leverage its resources, and still make a buck?"
Well (Score:1, Insightful)
MS and Open Source? (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, I don't see how Microsoft -- a closed and proprietary company -- could ever cooperate with Open Source Software. Their shared sorce program is a weak attempt, not at opening up, but increasing market share in one area where they're lacking. Yeah, that's a real open source attitude: present some code to the public to get more money.
Besides, Microsoft has already made clear that the GPL is a threat to capitalism; hence, their desire to have nothing to do with it.
Compete legally, that's all (Score:4, Insightful)
Oxy Moron (Score:2, Insightful)
MS should follow Apple. (Score:5, Insightful)
play fair (Score:5, Insightful)
I think a lot of the animosity toward Microsoft comes from the obstacles they put in the way of fair competition. Standards are the means by which software can compete on the basis of merit, and Microsoft takes advantage of the fact that pragmatically, a market leader's de facto standard speaks much louder than any written document.
Re:Microsoft Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
Fault MS for many things, but it's hard to fault them for creating an OS that's easy to get around for the average user. No command prompts necessary here.
I wish MS would do like Apple did and build Windows on top of a Linux or BSD based distro.
Re:Simple (Score:1, Insightful)
If we ever really want to see Linux on the desktop, we need to resolve exactly these issues and a few others: like the air of "superiority" exuded by the OS's current users. Sure, congratulate yourself for converting early; but don't alienate the exact same people you are trying to convert.
Re:Simple (Score:1, Insightful)
Of course not. For servers you want OpenBSD, for desktops, FreeBSD or OS X.
Re:Microsoft Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
I hate to burst your counter-culture bubble, but the only reasons we don't have download & double-click drivers like Windows does are 1) developers don't bother; 2) the Linux kernel changes almost daily, while Windows stagnates for 3-5 years at a time.
If you want to use Kernel 2.4.x until 2005, then people can put the effort into writing drivers, installers, and so on. Until then, or until kernel recompilation is easier, we'll have to live with insmod file.o or 'make && make install'
--Dan
Re:Simple (Score:3, Insightful)
"I could go on and on and on, but the conclusion is clear. Linux is not an option for any one who seeks a professional OS with high performance, scalability, stability, adherence to standards, etc."
Oh, but ME adheres to standards? Whose? Where's that SMP copy of 98 again? Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
"According to Linux advocates, an alternative to EXT2FS would be ReiserFS. Unfortunately, ReiserFS is still in beta stage. This means it is not intended for production use (although according to many Linux advocates this shouldn't be a problem, which makes me wonder how (little) valuable they find your data)."
Straw man. 10 minutes in the barrel for you, buddy.
Re:Microsoft Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Interoperability!... (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically it doesn't seem that Microsoft can totally change to an open-source strategy now. Even if they weren't too embarassed/unrepentantly monopolistic to want to.
I don't really see that they would open-source the entirety of Office, but it'd be nice if Microsoft were to make owning Office an option rather than a restrictive locked-in technology (yeah, I know. Word viewer available, inconsistent specs available. Not quite the same as working source code).
In any case, if the arguments about Linux's unsuitability for the desktop are correct, they have nothing to fear - if Linux users were to create Word documents or WMV or whatever with the code they were graciously permitted to use, the average human being would prefer to buy a nice user-friendly copy of Windows and view them on that.
Of course, if somebody were to create a piece of word processing software that happened to be better than Word and utterly interoperable, they'd lose out, but we all know that'd never happen (yeah, right).
Re:Microsoft Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
Stagnates? One of the reasons that Windows makes a good Desktop OS is that it doesn't change that much over time. As a tweaker and a twiddler, it's fun to go in and make every little update that you can. But consider the major desktop audience. They want their computer to be as simple as 'turn on, do stuff, turn off.'.
For Linux to try to de-throne Windows, it will have to be a lot more like Windows. Unfortunately, I think most of the Linux community barfs at this concept. Driver installs, for example, are a lot easier to do because Windows 'stagnates', or as I prefer to call, sticks to its standard.
Unfortunately the Win9X line could never be considered a serious OS, just too unstable and inflexible. Because of this, a lot of people like to look at what's wrong with Windows and try to fix those problems. They forget to look at what they did right. Linux would seriously benefit from that if it seriously wants to battle Windows where it is strongest.
Personally, I think Linux is better off staying off of the average desktop. The people who love it so much today will lose a lot of what they love in the process.
the real question is not... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:play fair (Score:4, Insightful)
Oddly enough, Cisco has become a pretty sizable business while their products manage to adhere to standards (I won't claim that they 'develop' them anymore - Cisco doesn't have an R&D budget).
Re:Microsoft Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
I think OS X has the best of both worlds because they started over. They have the flexibility (UNIX), but also the usability (MacOS 6-9).
--Dan
Re:It's the Operating System, stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
Right like Mozilla. Uh ... nevermind. Seems like it took Mozilla quite a while to get to a useable state after being opened. Open Source is not a panacea. The simple act of putting the source code out there will not guarantee you better results. In fact, still using Mozilla as an example, you're likely to end up being pushed to just scrap it all and rewrite, taking you out of the market for 2+ years and still 95% of the work is done by your own employees.
So, you wipe the latest and greatest version of Windows off your system before even trying it, yet you say that if there were a decent version of Windows available then you'd try it? Uh ... hello?
Re:How about Apple, as an example? (Score:1, Insightful)
The difference is:
(a) the executable has a different name
(b) the HTML for the admin UI has a different title
(c) they bundle it with the OS (OS X Server)
(d) they support it.
They are identical from a source code point of view. (I think it's basically a different build parameter you set at compile time to choose the name, but I'm not sure.)
The key distinction is that the streaming server is not an Apple-supported product when you download the code and build it yourself (i.e. on some random non-OS X UNIX platform).
Re:MS and Open Source? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it is. Now, whethor or not a threat to capitalism is a good or bad thing is left to the reader to determine.
I disagree. Capitalist businesses will benefit greatly by not having to pay for restrictive software licenses.
Although I don't have hard data, I would venture that most people in software are not employed writing and testing closed source products that are sold, but making custom mods for internal use, supporting installed systems, doing system installation and integration and other services. These endevours can all benefit from Open Source.
Furthermore, the closed source companies seem to be doing OK. Microsoft is making record profits. Oracle, Siebold, SAP all seem to be unaffected, so far, from Open Source.
Open Source represents competition to the Closed Source companies, but I believe that everyone benefits from competition. For example, the improved reliability of W2K and WXP over earlier offerings is, IMHO, a direct reaction, to some extent, to Linux and FreeBSD. I think that MS has actually benefitted from this renewed focus on stability. You can actually learn your best lessons from your competitors, if you are listening.
All this speculation about how OSS will kill the software companies is, so far, just speculation.
Re:Microsoft Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
Whats the worst that can happen?
Someone ports it, and your hardware is available on another OS with another base of potential customers?
Re:Microsoft Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll probably get a lot of flack for this anyway, but I do want to make this point - Of course we "barf" at it, if we wanted Linux to be more like Windows, we'd use Windows, not Linux. The point of Linux is not to displace Windows, but rather to provide a better suited OS for the market segment that MS increasingly does not care about (probably because we are just not too numerous compared to the "home user"), the so called "advanced" user.
Of course since we prefer Linux we think that others would as well, and constantly babble and whine about "widespread desktop adoption" "market penetration" and other vaguely sexual marketing buzzwords. But in the long run we probably only care about others using it to "prove" that what we like is better than what others like - a very common sentiment. Deep down I (as I've think I've said a few times before) couldn't really care less about who else uses Linux, as long as it continues to do what I like.
Having said all that, I can't agree with statements like "Linux should stay off the desktop" I would say that statements like "RedHat (or Mandrake, or Debian) should stay off the average desktop" are more appropriate, while still arguable :) It's one thing to say that the current GNU/Linux incarnations are not suitable for the average (to us - retarded) user, but it's another to say that only Windows can succeed there - this, I think, is fundamentally wrong. There will be more and more segmentation in the desktop market, and the most numerous (ie most profitable) will most likely be the "average" "home" user, with little (as it seems to us) functionality and with the "turn on, maybe do stuff, turn off" experience. Now, while we all think that Windows goes too far to accomodate this user, it may just be that it doesn't go far enough. And perhaps will never be able to, because of their reliance on having a single product acomodating everyone (already to a detriment of the more advanced users). I guess what I am trying to say is that it's conceivable that rather soon, MS will not be able to make Windows Home, Windows Business, Windows Developer, Windows Visual Artist, etc. distinct enough to satisfy any of those groups. While GNU/Linux distributions, targeted at one specific group and maintained and developed by companies dedicated to that one group would be a lot more suitable in their niche.
This of course does not take into account the non technical advantages in the field that MS enjoys, and will certainly fight to their death for, but I am not talking about anything related to real life :) I am just trying to say that nothing in the Linux business model (and certainly not any fundamental lack of technical merits) prevents it from being an effective desktop system, for most kinds of users, and blanket statements such as "it should stay out of this or that" just don't seem to carry much sense.
Give the old version away (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about it. Microsoft ships a new release, Windows XP. They put the source up on their site for anyone to download, and in theory, use to release their own windows.
Now, its going to take at least a few weeks/months to get that source code compiled, libraries replaced, etc... so the OEMs have no choice for several months about what they sell.
So, 6 months later, a smart OEM can now offer the latest Windows, or a somewhat cheaper machine, with an older, non-Microsoft Windows, or a Linux with a really good Windows compatibility layer. Some consumers will go for it, but many, many will elect to get the Real Thing.
The next release? Again, MS has a long window (no pun) to sell the Real Thing, while an OEM can elect to sell a 2-generation old Windows until they catch up.
It gives choice. It give MS a revenue stream and instant competition.
Re:Microsoft Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Interestingly, I was at an Entrepreneurial Conference put on by SEA (www.sea.org.au) in 1999, and a gentlemen pointed out that you'll never be successful making a better product, You're successful by making your product different.
To be quite honest, open source products are not going to be chosen simply because they are "better" - you have to show the consumer what's in it for them, what the product is going to give them over the competition.
One cannot think of Microsoft products individually, the difference/value that Microsoft provides its customers is a family of integrated/all work-together products. That's where Microsoft's success is: in it's product cohesion.
Cohesion/Consistency is what the consumer wants and ironically are willing to put up with a few BSODs every week (tho if you've used XP, this is a hell of a lot less...). Most "Joe Average's" I know associate "free" with "cheap/nasty". Until such times as Open-source products can get past this mis-informed attitude, then it will be relegated to the back office and those adventurous souls that actually know better.
As for Microsoft and Open-source co-existing? I think today that Microsoft would probably be happy as far as the consumer market is concerned... However, in the server arena they are more worried...
-- Dan "Maybe I should have done marketing instead of Software Engineering" Thomas =)
it's the file format stupid. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just do like the Underpants Gnomes... (Score:3, Insightful)
Phase 2: Sell it
Why is this so hard to grasp?
what was the question again? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the way I see it, MS can and does survive pretty well in a market with open source, and not because they are a monopoly practicing unfair business practices but because they make an easy to use solution that satisfies most people's expectations.
As a regular user of all of windows 98se and 2000, debian linux, and freebsd, I have to say that the windows paradigm is damned easy to get around in. I don't see freebsd as ready to be a common-man desktop operating system, nor do I see any of the linux distros I've tried as there yet. Some of them are getting pretty close, but from an install standpoint, and configuration changes, and software installs and support, OSS OS'es demand more understanding than the tired-cliche-joe-sixpack will ever want to put into his OS or his computer. He doesn't care about monopolistic practices, he wants to turn it on and have it "just work"
Anyway, to stay on topic, I think windows should lower prices when OSS OS'es and software actually offer a threat to them in the desktop realm, and maybe should admit defeat or strive to improve and put out a decent product in the server market. Maybe MS should just pick their battles a little better, attacking OSS'es soft underbelly (the desktop) and not touching their armored shell (the server market) until they can actually compare with it, if they ever can.
But what do I know?
Re:Random ways MS could cooperate (Score:4, Insightful)
I would love to see MS cooperating with open and free software as much as the next /.er (actually, I am not too certain how much that is), but this point strikes me as a) unfair and b) unworkable. While it's certainly reasonable to hold a company to a standard (which makes competition more fair) it's hardly reasonable to expect them to baby-sit a competing product (which would not help fairness in competition). And we can't epect them (much as we dislike them) to be held accountable for things that are not under their control, but under the control of a competitor.
If not code, then "standards" (Score:5, Insightful)
Who really CARES about microsoft code? Get the API and hooks out in the open so we can SEE when they're deliberately forcing you to replace that "win95 only" application that still works fine but somehow doesn't run under win98 or XP. That's the "open source" I want.
No, this isn't flamebait. I keep a collection of system files archived because about once a year microsoft releases an "update" that breaks one program or another. I've seen this since MS deliberately broke netscape with a small dll file and Netscape support was forced to redistribute that dll file as a fix. Get the standards in the open and we'll be happier than we'd be with the actual code.
MS demonstrates why monopolies kill free markets (Score:4, Insightful)
MS is a predatory monopoly. This isn't just rhetoric, it's been the case of an earlier consent decree and the recent criminal conviction.
Predatory monopolies are the free market equivalence of singularities (black holes) in physics. They change all of the rules around them.
E.g., let's say I'm an OEM and I know that 5% of my customers want a non-MS OS. In a free market, I could offer the alternative at a reasonable price (including overhead for the cost of maintaining a second product line) and the alternative will sink or swim on its own.
But since MS is a predatory monopoly, it has written contracts that say the sale of a single non-MS system puts the OEM in a new category and ALL licenses cost an extra $10. The price of this license has nothing to do with the what's offered for sale, for volume, or any other purpose of any economic value to anyone. (MS does not gain from it since it never expects the clause to be enforced.)
No - the sole purpose for that clause is to artifically raise the entry barrier to the competition. It's the difference between a natural monopoly because, gosh darn it, every time we hear that Windows chime we have spontaneous orgasms because the software is such an incredible joy to work with and a predatory monopoly where the software is universally condemned as one of the worst products on the market yet it's impossible for most people to find alternatives.
The problem, of course, is that this is no longer a free market. A free market may have a Gateway offering a Linux box for 50% more than a Windows box because of the need to avoid the cheap win-hardware, and to cover additional overhead costs. A free market would never tolerate an OEM being forced to pay a third party uninvolved in the transaction in any way tens of millions of dollars in penalties.
It's about time. (Score:3, Insightful)
No doubt. I'd like to see successful GPL'd code too. I'm not saying it's not out there, I'm just saying I've never heard of it. The reason MS isn't using it is because their current business model works and people pay for it.
What incentive do they have to change? How could they possibly make even as much money with it as they do now?
Call MS evil if you like, but they are a business. Their job is to make money. They picked a strategy and they're playing hardball. If you want GPL to be successful, then you have to find a way to make it profitable. When somebody makes insane amounts of money using the GPL approach, then MS may change their tune.
Re:Microsoft Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
" It's one thing to say that the current GNU/Linux incarnations are not suitable for the average (to us - retarded) user..."
There's no such thing as a retarded user. It's human nature that everybody is different. Some of us run our desktops at 1024 by 768, some of us run them at 3200 by 1200 (dual). What you're really saying is that people have different tastes, and some of us don't want to have to fight with just getting the computer to come on like it should. A good deal of the Linux community would say "wtF? It's real easy to get a driver going, just do this, this and this." But us newbs don't want to climb that tree until it is interesting to us.
Linux, in any incarnation, would do seriously well to address the issue of how to get a newb into using it with as few hiccups as possible. Everybody is 'retarded' until they are educated, they are not mentally defective against using Linux. So when somebody says "I tried to use Linux, but I couldn't even get the video driver to behave", instead of saying 'retard', say "I bet I could make a distro of Linux that fixes that problem". That's what GPL is all about, if I'm not mistaken.
I don't mean to imply that you meant more than you did with that comment, but I you are right that I have taken some flack over the whole 'preferring Win2k over Linux because I can use it' attitude. It's okay to take away the opinion that I am a moron, but do us both a favor and listen to why I made the choice I did.
P.S. That was a wonderful response, thank you.
MS should stay the hell away from OSS (Score:2, Insightful)
Besides, we'd have one less thing to bitch about on
Answer the question?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
As others have noted, while Microsoft put pressure on its competitors, now found to be illegal pressure, much of the demise of MS's competitors has been their own dang fault.
For example, MS did everything they could to get IE as the "default browser" that it is today, but who here has used any recent version of Netscape and been happy with it? 4.x sucks, 6.x is worse, and IE is quite usable. Throw the politics out - which would you prefer?
Mozilla will hopefully change the story, but it's YEARS too late in an industry that works on Internet time.
Word Perfect didn't come out with a decent word processor for Windows for YEARS after Win 3.x became popular.
And so on.
If Linux takes Microsoft, it will be because Microsoft makes a fatal mistake. We don't know what it will be. It might actually be
Whatever it be, it will be when they make a mistake, bet their farm on it, and lose the farm. So far, they've avoided the big mistakes, and the small/medium mistakes have been offset up by strong-arm tactics and backroom deals.
But, if MS sticks to making products that generally work as expected, and don't charge too much for them, and don't hassle their clients too much, it would be damn near impossible to beat 'em.
How would MS beat Linux?
1) Charge reasonable prices for Windows.
2) Make sure it works reasonably well.
3) Make their products inter-operate.
MS has our fury because they have consistently tried to lock the user in. If they were to follow the above three, they'd be no worse off than google, which despite approaching a monopoly on Internet searching, still has our good will. The boys at google have shown time and again a staunch and admirable "stick to basics" approach to their business that inspires trust and confidence.
MS, on the other hand, lies openly and repeatedly to anybody who will listen about whatever suits their fancy.
I don't know what it will be, but MS will make that fatal mistake - and after making it, they will either go the way of DEC (which was once a titan) or learn from their mistakes like IBM. (who now has our love and grace)
So, my advice? Back off Bill! Take it easy a bit, and work WITH the industry forces, (Internet and related, like Linux) inter-operate, and for once, show some ethics!
Re:Simple (Score:1, Insightful)
The story was posted at 08:00PM.
The parent was posted at 08:01PM and contains 493 words.
Only trolls can type 493 words/minute.
Re:No service arm? Wha? (Score:2, Insightful)
Following your logic, we should ALL still be medieval peasants then.
Or are you honestly such an idiot you think First World nations got that way by somehow magically skipping that whole industrialization process?
Wake up and learn some history. A little bit of economics would do you a lot of good too.
OS improved the **software**, not the hardware (Score:5, Insightful)
So, Microsoft could use open source in manner parallel to Darwin (and Apple's treatment of Apache, SSH, Perl, etc etc) to improve their software. Whether or not they're a hardware vendor, improving their software should make it more attractive to customers, and thus Increase Shareholder Value.
Actually, I suppose that competing on the cutting edge of quality is a novel strategy for MS. But heck, if they wanted to start doing that more more often....
Their Strategy Should Be: NONE. (Score:3, Insightful)
Any conessions Microsoft would make towards the Open Source community would be an enourmous mistake. It would only succeed in showing their customer base "The Microsoft Way" is not the best way, which is what they are paying to hear.
In 2002, the IT industry is going to have to take sides in a war. Traditional versus Innovative, Closed versus Open, Agressive Development versus Passive Development, Cathedral versus Bazaar. No matter what you call it, you're going to have to firmly identify yourself on one side or the other.
The Microsoft Way says that there should be one company to spearhead development, and lead everyone else down a primrose path. Not only should you follow your shepherd Microsoft, but you should shell out gobs of money for the mere opportunity to follow this shepherd, as it tends to be comfortable inside the herd, and youre surrounded by other sheep you can point fingers at in the event of a catastrophe.
The "Other" Way, or, more clearly, OUR way, goes something like this: I am personally accountable for my actions. If I assume responsibility for something outside my sphere of competence, I do so at my own risk. Professionally, I will chose what works best for my company, regardless of platform affinity. My preferences often do not extend to encompass others. I know Mildren over in Accounting doesnt know what "grep" is. If something goes catastrophically wrong, its a lesson that would have been learned anyway. I dont care where the herd is going. I am the Sheperd, not the sheep.
Take your pick.
Re:Microsoft Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
Throughout the entire essay there is not one mention of GNU or the GPL. Without GNU there would be no "Open Source" movement today. Without GNU there would be no Linux. Red Hat is laying claim to a movement they don't fully back and completely cut out the original motivation, GNU.
I'm not even going to bother explaining IBM. I don't even think IBM itself knows what it wants. Hence the "leech." They just grab onto anything which they think has a potential of making money. Right now Linux is the hot new thing.
I'd like to say I'm not anti-Red Hat even if I sound like it. They have families to feed just like everyone else. What I am saying is Red Hat is not what most people envision them to be. It is called marketing when a faceless corporation throws out images of greatness and "towing the line." Marketing should never be confused with an actual backing or support.
The real question (Score:2, Insightful)
The real question is "Do we care?"
There are enough alternative operating systems out there. I for one couldnt give a rats a... if MS folded over night because it couldnt make a buck in the open source world..... and I run a couple of MS Windows boxes.
Microsoft will do whatever it wants - always has, always will... and as usual, in the eyes of the media, it will smell like a rose.
Simple Really (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:play fair (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We're not disagreeing (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, most UI critiques of Microsoft products read like a litany of cardinal sins. Intuitive: no, natural: no, adaptable: no, etc., etc. The one category where they really excel is in consistency. Unfortunately, it's consistency in bad paradigms. The reason that the Windows 95 interface has been copied over and over again (by both KDE and GNOME, notably), is because it has been grudgingly learned by a public with no other options. I mean, we're talking about an interface that needed a massive marketing blitz and a best-selling "how to use it" video starring TV celebrities to help people figure it out!
In a market with true competition, a competitor would have been able to make major inroads in 1994, just because Windows 95 was so frightening to users.
Re:Microsoft Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
AmigaOS's interface had a standard.
The dashboard in GM cars has a standard.
The windows gui has no standard. It's been too long now (well past 6 months since I booted windows - any incarnation) to remember every little quirk and faux pas, but I'm talking windows itself, not third party software. Buttons here and there that don't have focus by default, tabbed dialogs, that sometimes require hitting OK before tabbing, other times not... it's one big mess. These are the people that put the shutdown command in the "start" button, do remember.
Re:Answer the question?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd prefer the secure, standards compliant one which renders the most sites. I'm not that bothered about performance, one browser opening half a second quicker than the other makes no odds when mandatory antivirus locks the whole machine up every now and then. (Not that this makes a difference, Mozilla opens and renders faster than IE these days anyway.) I'd like tabbed browsing, and I'd like the thing to stay up for, say, ten days without crashing. Looks like Mozilla's a clear winner then.
Are those reasons political?
MS open source arguments are a red herring (Score:2, Insightful)
1) its products are generally of poor quality
2) despite (1) it dominates the market through unscrupulous and sometimes illegal business practices
The only one that has the right or responsibility to change (1) is Microsoft itself. If it does this through adopting a more open development model, fine. If it does it by better training its developers and Q.A. personnel, fine. If it does it by hiring another company to find and fix its bugs, fine. And if it doesn't do it at all, that's fine too. People can vote with their feet and with their dollars and simply get their software from somebody else.
Except they can't, because of (2). And this is where antitrust law comes in and this is the thing that people should really care about.
People who want to see Microsoft compelled to reveal their source code are only distracting the issue. It's not as though Microsoft is the only company or organization that is capable of producing the kind of software people want. Ask any developer that is trying to write software for Windows and they'll tell you they don't want to know how Microsoft's software does what it does, rather they want to know how how to be able to make their software do what they want it to do. For this they need complete and accurate documentation of Microsoft's APIs and the information they need to be able to make informed decisions about performance, compatability, security, etc.
It's not as though the only way that anyone else can compete with Microsoft is by copying from its source code like some lazy student, who hasn't been coming to class all semester and only now realizes that the only way (s)he can finish the assignment is to cheat off the smart kids.
Most of the smart people always work for someone else, and this is as true of Microsoft as it is of any other company. If competitors are given equal access to the interfaces then they will make great software, and Microsoft knows this this. All this talk of forcing them to open their code simply obscures the issues, which I would summarize as follows:
1) Microsoft monopolizes information about the interfaces of its operating system, putting application-level competitors at an unfair disadvantage
2) Microsoft uses its dominant operating system market share to coerce hardware vendors to withold support for other operating systems, putting OS-level competitors at an unfair disadvantage.
Compelling Microsoft to divulge bits of source code here and there will do little to remedy (1) and nothing at all to address (2). But then again, neither will any of the proposed remedies from any of the antitrust suits.
Um, they could *start* a consultant branch. (Score:2, Insightful)
Then again, there'd be a few gajillion certified partners that'd scream bloody murder if they did. So step two is to hire the good ones. After all, having a phone list of candidates worldwide can't hurt when trying to come up to speed as a consultancy. The rest will calm down when they see their own rates ligitimized and increased because Microsoft charges 3x or 4x what many mom-n-pop consultancies are currently stuck charging.
Once the consulting arm is alive, start tiering software. Open source and give away the limited/educational level software, and charge for the standard and enterprise grade stuff. Exchange server: costs. Enterprise-grade exchange server: costs lots. Wait, don't set that checkbook down. You'll need help setting things up correctly. And MS will do it for just $300 per hour. Support contract? Another kilobuck per year per dozen employees. Etc.
Hmm, that sounds a lot like Oracle, IBM and Sun. Why is it I read daily that the future is in service, yet Microsoft doesn't have a significant service or consulting branch? It chills me to guess that Microsoft doesn't because they're too happy making 96% markup on their software-only business to waste time picking up the pennies left over on consultancy margins.
OK, so maybe somebody has already thrown this question back to the questioner, but if so, they're buried somewhere below mod-3 level (not that my comments ever escape there with my newbie-ized lack of karma.)
--If early cars were like software, we'd all have gone back to horses.
The GPL != free beer (Score:1, Insightful)
Any company that wants to work with free software has the option of only making compiled binaries available to paying customers. The GPL only requires that the source accompany the binaries. It does not even require that the source be freely available on an ftp server.
Microsoft (or any company) could easily release code under the GPL, and only release binaries and source on CD. No code on microsoft.com. Or, code on microsoft.com only by subscription. This does not violate the GPL.
Yes, Joe Q. Hacker will put the source up on Warez.com, but Microsoft is under no obligation to support it.
Many consumers will gladly get legal source and binaries from downstream sources. But these are the same consumers who are currently getting illegal warez copies. They are lost revenue anyway.
Some consumers will not trust these downstream binaries, and they will gladly pay for certified binaries. These are the same customers who pay for Windows now.
But here is the important point: The enterprise will not touch downstream binaries. They will only get their binaries from the source. There are too many liabilities involved in possibly tainted code. Since the enterprise is the source of the greatest revenue, this protects an important revenue stream.
Support issues are a little messy, but they tend to boil down to: Microsoft does not support altered code. Basically no different from today, where Microsoft does not support OEM versions of Microsoft products.
Are there already companies doing business with free software following this model?
Counterproductive (Score:2, Insightful)
They're not changing their position, folks, no matter how much we beg and plead, unless there is a business reason to do so. M$'s ultimate weakness is its hubris. They really believe the spin their marketing people and strategy people pump out: that their products are better, that Open Source is anti-competitive, that they aren't a monopoly, etc. They also believe that customers will continue to pay a premium to be a part of their endless upgrade cycle, a belief that will be shattered as XP gets shot down as a solution for more and more corporate desktops, and ASP's look toward lower-cost alternatives to .N(Y)ET in their datacenters.
I say go on and let them go about their business. More developers and users will get abused, surely, and that sucks. But we've seen that Open Source is a movement, not a revolution. Expecting it to cause instantaneous upheaval at the world's most successfuly company is arrogant, short-sighted and ultimately counterproductive.
In the end, only Microsoft can bring down Microsoft. And it will. Just not in time for supper.
Let the flaming begin.