IBM's on-demand model is "crazy" and Open Source is "really a developer phenomenon" that does not stand comparison with "customer experience of Windows Live", said Charles Fitzgerald, Microsoft's general manager of platform strategy, last week. In an interview, Fitzgerald said that there was no comparison between Microsoft Live, which offers on-demand features, and IBM's on-demand strategy. Elsewhere, references to free software and Linux were removed from a UN document after Microsoft claimed that such software aims to 'make it impossible to make any income on software as a commercial product'.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-11-13
Member since:
---
RE: Good to hear the UN is in Bills pocket.
Member since:
---
Member since:
2005-07-06
I knew the UN was a mess, but this much of a mess, that panelmembers don't even get to know what happens to the documents they're supposed to discuss?
It's easy to dismiss such things when it comes to geopoliticing, but when it affects the very core of our capitalist system (1 competitor making sure the UN validates only 1 buisness model), I get..upset.
Member since:
2005-07-06
I realize that this is OSnews, the MS-bashing site, but it's worth reading the actual source material, not just the inaccurate ZDnet story.
If you do so, you'll see that Microsoft objected to specific references to the FSF and "Linux", instead prefering the more general "open source", in the otherwise free-of-names document. There's no reason a UN document should be full of advertising for the FSF and GNU/Linux.
Member since:2005-11-02
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-08
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
RE[3]: Read the source
Member since:2005-07-06
Um... actually, some of us *did* read the source material and Microsoft objected to the term "the success of the free software model" in reference to the new service-oriented shift in software revenues as well as numerous general references to different forms of software distribution and licensing. Microsoft is arguing that software's place is not in the public domain. They even go so far as to explicitly say just that. Their proposal never preferred the more general "open source".
In fact, your post is utter and complete bullshit.
The pieces proposed to be deleted by Microsoft were all general references (of which the Free Software Model was a cited example) to sharing knowledge and encouraging a services-based infrastructure. The irony of you encouraging others to read the source material without actually reading it yourself is not lost on those of us with two neurons to rub together.
Member since:2005-07-06
Can you read? They objected to a laundry list of issues surrounding software distribution models not aligned with their current business model. This is clearly supported by the fact that they propose to eliminate such phrases as "increasingly, revenue is generated not by selling content and digital works, as they can be freely distributed at almost no cost, but by offering services on top of them" from the text. What, pray tell, does that have to do with free software? Of course, many free software projects make bucketloads of money using precisely this type of business model, but so do many proprietary businesses, open source projects and closed source service vendors. Microsoft makes very little in this manner and feels it's dangerous to suggest that this might be the way things are moving in the future.
So no, they did not object to the term "the Free Software Model". They objected to the entire process of which the free distribution model is but a single example among a sea of others. Your selective reading of the source is mind-numbing. Not everything is an FSF/Linux zealotry plot to overthrow the status quo (although last I checked, volunteering time and labor to develop a product that is then donated to the general public is hardly malicious; Firefox is an excellent example of this). And upon further reading of the document, I have yet to see their "broader, freer open source approach" outlined in words.
Member since:---
They didn't object to FSF references. They objected to references to concepts that come from the free software movement. It's like an opera speaking of equality, and Microsoft getting all talk of equality removed because they don't like the opera. It should *never* have happened.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Red Hat - making money; say it ain't so! say it ain't so!
SUN; same situation; their money, in reference to software, has never been made of selling shrink wrapped software, but selling support services to large customers - even before the opensourcing of Solaris or the eventual opensourcing of JES.
Microsofts WHOLE programme relies on having third party vendors doing that; they don't want to take on that responsibility, so they slander anyone who may have a particular business model that derives revenue off services.
What Microsoft SHOULD do is simply be a mature business and say, "hey, there might be something to this; lets investigate" - but currently right now, they seem to be like the spoilt kid who can't get his own way, so insteads screams and pouts in a home of getting his own way.
IBM has realised that they need to change, same with SUN and many other businesses - Microsoft will change, be it kicking and screaming in that particular direction, just as they were bough kicking and screaming into the internet age - after dismissing it as hype, just as they dismissed the idea of thin clients as 'resurrecting a dead concept'.
Member since:
---
The document referred to as a "UN document" is actually NOT.
The document is called [the] "Vienna conclusions", and I quote from the authors website:
"On 2 and 3 June 2005, experts from all over the world came to Vienna to share visions on and discuss about the topic of “ICT & Creativity”, a burning issue not just for the Austrian government, which hosted the event.
At this official WSIS Meeting, helping to prepare the Second Phase of the United Nations World Summit on the Information Society that will take place in Tunis from 16-18 November 2005, key business people met ministers and state secretaries, researchers, creatives and members of the civil society, but also thinkers who are very critical of the Digital Revolution."
source: http://www.wsa-conference.org/data/cd_themes.htm
This means it is NOT a "UN document", but merely a brainstorming/workshop documents used in preparations of a later technology discussion at the UN meeting in Tunis.
Post scriptum: And for you UN bashers (Americans & others) making jokes about a UN controlled Internet instead of brave America, it is NOT proposed that China, N.Korea or any other nation of your hate liste that will control the Internet, but ITU. Ever heard of them? ITU? I guess you should better come up with some better jokes/arguments next time.
It seems like UN is a victim for shitty propaganda in american medias atm.
Member since:
---
Member since:
---
> It seems like UN is a victim for shitty propaganda
> in american medias atm.
Yeah, thanks to Bolton. UN's USA ambassador my ass.
How ironic they today blame all day an international body that US created, backed and is still the major - by far - funder.
I can't wait they put their money where is their mouth: US, please, quit UN if you can't stand it anymore.
It seems dividing the world is yet again the new World Power policy...
Member since:
2005-10-30
