Microsoft learns to live with open source
 

In the past few months, the company has committed to working with open-source products--to a point--and shown a willingness to adopt aspects of the open-source development model, according to Microsoft managers and partners.

Full Article at:
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+learns...l?tag=nefd.pop

I found that article yesterday. I liked the article, very well written IMO. I would like to think that Microsoft now are starting to really worry about Linux and therefore are trying new methods to gain popularity on Linux expense. I do not think that they are willing to see a future with the two existing together. But I don't think that they have abandoned FUD. They will still do everything to compete with Linux.

But Open Source is a different thing. I am not sure if they even see if they will be able to get rid of that "problem" any time soon. Maybe they are accepting FOSS and trying to make FOSS writers write for Windows instead of Linux, making sure that the Windows OS will not lack any good FOSS programs, trying to keep Windows on the desktop market.

This is just some thoughts I have.

Regards.

Microsoft supports open source projects such as DNN, IBuySpy, and ASPNetForums only when it is only compatible with their own proprietary technology.

I'll bet that if DNN is ported to C# (it won't be) or Mono begins to really support VB, that M$ will either pull the plug or reneg on their "open" .Net standard and try to get Mono shut down.

I sometimes wonder what would happen if Microsoft (gasp!) offered source-code licenses for Windows to more than just its enormous customers.

After all, "open source" and "free" are not the same thing, and I wonder if sometimes Linux is beating them in sales simply because Linux can be adapted to a "slightly different" situation without an act of eighteen executive committees....

With Linux being used a lot in Robotics, eventually MS will takeover companies like Red Hat and expand into Robotics and Space Research/Exploration.

Here is an article that already indicates a start to this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in705481.shtml

Vijay

Unfortunately, things like "take over Red Hat" are, I believe, spurious rumors. Why? Because there's nothing particularly there to "take" if you "take over." When the source code is available, you don't need to purchase the company to get it. (Obviously there are copyrights to be bought and sold.) Purchasing a particular Linux distributor won't shut-down Linux or even inconvenience it... the license agreements have been tested in the courts and found to be "unconventional, but legally binding."

What a company like Microsoft could do, maybe, is to enter into a joint venture to pursue this area ... but once again, why? Where's the money in it? Where's the return-on-investment? How does space-exploration mesh with what Microsoft presently does (that we can read about in the papers, anyway)...

What Microsoft should be doing right now is tending its own fires, and mending its own fences. It made the serious mistake of believing its own marketing, "breathing its own ... (ahem) ... 'air' ...", and paying way, way too much money to lawyers who are gleefully happy but not particularly effective. Its customers are not happy, and they're starting to vote with their wallets.

For clarification, MS Taking over Red Hat etc., is just my long term personal theory/projection. This is not even a rumor, I don't see this happening any time soon.

Microsoft's idea of working with open source:

- detect wine and refuse to install
- continue to spread FUD based on Linux technology as it stood 8 years ago
- continue to lie about total cost of ownership
- continue to lie about downtime/uptime
- continue to lie about Windows' capabilities
- preach need for support of open standards, except when it comes to opening up their own

Another related news:

http://news.com.com/At+Microsoft%2C+...3-5829512.html

A few months ago I decided to divert myself away from Microsoft because of their overbearing attempts to maintain control over the computing market. To do this they have to make every attempt to either divert attention away from their competition or to create the perception that their competition is not truly competition.

Microsoft's involvement in FOSS is as good an example of diversion as you can find. Linux and the FOSS community doesn't take a great deal of the market from Microsoft, yet they want to be involved in the FOSS community. They claim the desire to be more open, but as you can see from other posts, it's mostly lip service. Speaking in very broad general terms, Microsoft's entire infrastructure and marketing process is contradictory to the ideas of FOSS.

I am an optimist and would like to believe that Microsoft is wanting to become part of the FOSS community, but their history doesn't justify that position. What my cynical side wants to believe is that this is a way to either keep Microsoft on the tongues of computer users by integrating the buzz phrase "Open Source" to be connected with Microsoft or to partially divert attention away from the some of the bugs and security holes that have been reported for Windows Vista.


But like I said, I'm an optimist and maybe that isn't the case.

I suppose we shall see...

:scratch:

I dont know if anyone here has tried out the Windows Vista Beta but I did and well...I think windows is trying to compare to linux. If you havent seen screenshots of the desktop http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/image/vista/ , it resembles a slick GNOME GUI. Of course the start menus the same as in XP with a few new features and now that firefox has made tabbed browsing so famous Microsoft decides to throw it in IE7. I dont know about you but I think windows is starting to look more and more like linux. I wonder if this will be good or bad for linux? Well we shall soon find out.

I think the idea of good or bad is going to depend on how you view the possibilities.
I tend to be a bit pessimistic and think that Bill Gates is looking for every way possible to expand his empire. If Microsoft gets into the Open Source & FOSS world, I think that it will only be because he can use it to his own ends.

Microsoft is a successful company. I think its pretty much universally accepted that many of Microsoft's products have a myriad list of issues from pre-release to release and on. For me personally, this isn't a selling point. I don't think it is for most people. I think what makes Microsoft so successful is their ability to capitalize on the creations and activities of others while side-stepping the problems with their own products. Sort of a modern day "Roman Technology Empire".

Ultimately, I believe that this is what will happen with Microsoft involvement. Again, like I stated above, I try to be optimistic and believe that possibilities do exist, but even though I'm optimistic, I've got a faily low level of faith...

I read an article a week or so ago where the city of Munich, Germany was converting its computers from Microsoft Windows to Linux (SuSE or Red Hat, I think), at a cost of around $30 million. Steve Ballmer himself went over to try to cut a better deal to keep the customer, and failed.

I doubt this is really that big of a hit to Microsoft, but I think Microsoft may be starting to see a little bit of writing on the wall.

http://www.linuxquestions.org/news/linux344865.html

has everyone forgotten about this article already??
M$ saying they can live with open source is just more FUD...........we need to make it known to Intel that screwing over Linux users is NOT acceptable......M$ and Intel have been in bed together for so long they might as well be Married!