The head of Open Source Development Labs, Stuart Cohen, has added weight to rumours of greater collaboration between Microsoft and the open source community. He said: “I would not be surprised to see them participate in software that runs on top of Linux in the future.”
I was under the impression that many Linux users (especially on the desktop) moved there to get _away_ from the draconian licensing and questionable stability of Microsoft products. I can’t help but think Microsoft’s offerings here will both be expensive and locked down- the opposite of the “free” environment.
While that may seem to be the case, a lot of Linux users also moved away from Microsoft for the great amount of choice afforded them in using OSS. These people will just make the choice to not use Microsoft products that run on Linux.
As for questional stability of Microsoft products, I tend to have more of my apps on my Ubuntu box crash than any Microsoft product on my Windows XP box or my PowerBook.
choice?
they did it because it was free!
that’s why i did it.
Since Windows unstable is no more (XP is by and large stable) and that therefore longhorn will be a terribly hard thing to sell, they have to consider everything, anything.
Linux = 40% of the server market ? Why would MS spit on it in the long run ? They have not become what they are with principles 😉
Linux = 40% of the server market ? Why would MS spit on it in the long run ? They have not become what they are with principles 😉
Where do you people come up with these numbers? IDC reports 25% for Linux on servers.
Oh well, not as bad as the guy claiming Linux has 25% of the desktop market the other day.
Out of nowhere, my apologies, just wanted to convey that it’s a market that’s hard to ignore for anyone, MS like anybody else.
Cohen added that proprietary software development was enormously important to the future of Linux and open source software, and that they would continue to co-exist. “There is an opportunity for a tremendous amount of software, mostly proprietary but some open source, to be developed on Linux. Proprietary continues to grow and grow rapidly,” he said.
Its good to see some rational thinking coming from the “open source” camp as opposed to the FSF/GNU crowd. I’d like to see a healthy mix of proprietary and open source.
yeah, I know! linux really has 50% of the desktop market!!
just kidding
Maybe not 50% but it has more than you think:
GNU/Linux, the world’s #1 OS by google hits http://www.google.com/search?q=linux , M$ windows #2 http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+windows .
Open Office the world’s #1 office suite http://www.google.com/search?q=open+office+-microsoft , M$ office #2 http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+office .
Apache, the world’s #1 web server http://www.google.com/search?q=apache , M$ IIS #2 http://www.google.com/search?q=iis .
Evolution, the world’s #1 email client http://www.google.com/search?q=evolution+email , M$ outlook #2 http://www.google.com/search?q=outlook+email .
Mozilla family browsers are still #2 http://www.google.com/search?q=mozilla , M$ internet explorer is #1 http://www.google.com/search?q=internet+explorer , but firefox (#3 http://www.google.com/search?q=firefox ) is growing.
Yes, I know this is not a good measure of market share but fun anyway and no worse than the people using dollars to measure free software penetration. 😉
Linux has 75% of the desktop. Apple has the other 25%.
Of course this is just my computers, but it’s a start.
i tend to agree with FishSticks, i rather keep Microsoft’s products out of my Linux install, i guess it is time to keep a closer eye on the EULAs of the software i install…
No very bad to me.
I’m in line with that kind of extremist that is R.Stallman.
Freedom is better than opportunism
It’s a clever Idea, but considering Microsoft record It all might end up becomming vaporware
Microsoft can go suck it!
Althought it may never happen, I for one would love to see Microsoft Office, Outlook, SQL Server, etc. on Linux. I really think it would open up the Linux operating system and offer more choice to customers. More choice is always good. One could still choose to run GPL only systems, but others would have the ability to choose Linux + MS SQL or Exchange or (god forbid) IIS.
I think it’s time that Microsoft ports Office and their other software to Linux. If their stuff is so good, can it stand up to the competition on a level field?
If my boss wants to pay for Excel, he should be able to have it. Just don’t make me install Windows for him to get it!
No wine thanks, I’ve had enough. — jimcooncat
Ziff Davis as a publisher is not trustworthy. Don’t take anything on face value that appears in a ZD publication as it is frequently quoted out of context or missing important details.
If you find that this is harsh, go look at previous articles posted here on OSnews or on other news sites where the link points back to a Ziff Davis web site.
What are the characteristics of those other articles?
Are the articles detailed and informative … or not? Are they intended to anger/excite with very little content … or do they actually provide the context for you to make your own judgement?
While ZD is not alone, the amount of useful content is so minimal that plodding through the dreck is not worthy of your or any other person’s time.
If you disagree, show me a single paragraph in any article on OSNews that points to ZD as the source that was not sensatioalistic, was factually correct, and included details in context.
I agree with you completely. I also have a growing suspicion that ZD is a front for M$ itself. All their articles seem to sympathise with open-source etc where in fact, drive home the point that M$ is doing everything right and is the ultimate platform etc.
Its time open-source enthusiasts learnt to separate the veiled FUD from the real thing.
Ms will never do that. period
“Ms will never do that. period”
Just like Apple will never use Intel processors…
Maybe ther is something right in the question that some closed-source commercial apps could be developed for Linux, but for God´s Sake, don´t ask Microsoft whose biggest enemy is Linux!, better go for market niches where M$ still has not the lead: Go for Macromedia-Adobe!, go for Autodesk!, go for Games!, these are the only software fields that are not dominated (yet) by Microsoft: Imagine architects could avoid the costs and low-stability of Windows and instead they would be happier to expend those saved bucks on a copy of Autocad, the same applies to Games or imagine Dreamweaver running under Linux!!!, that would be maybe the step that is left for Linux to conker the desktop market! Don´t settle for nothing else.
Waaaaaahhhhh!!!!!
Linux equally sucks!. I just lost two hours of audio editing work after audacity and alsa drivers locked up.
Never happened to me on XP + SoundForge
I just lost two hours of audio editing work after audacity and alsa drivers locked up.
Never happened to me on XP + SoundForge
Then why, o why, aren’t you happily using Microsoft Windows XP and SoundForge?
Besides, if you have worked on Windows you know you should save early and often…
Working on a project for two hours and not saving intermediate versions borders on stupidity… in any operating environment.
Gnu/Linux is not crash free (applications can crash, even the kernel can panic once in a while), but it isn’t crash prone either.
i dunno. linux and windows xp seem to crash equally the same. However, it’s the programs that crash–not the OS. and you never have to restart often
been saying it a while now…
M$ desktop environment for linux….
M$ office for linux….
i cant think of anything else someone would want tho…
🙂
full of binary assemblies makes perfect sense, once Mono is fully developed.
MS’s only ideology is $.
Name the Applications Please
No flames but it is highly unlikely that a foss application is inferior to any M$ application.
PS I dont mean Debian Unstable or Experimental.
Name the Applications Please
No flames but it is highly unlikely that a foss application is inferior to any M$ application.
PS I dont mean Debian Unstable or Experimental.
Visio, Project, Money … etc etc
Linux is far superior when it comes to the server market though. Unless you want AD.
I tried to use GNOME on Debian Woody (stable). That was a real disaster. Panel and many applets crashed so often that I had to give up. I’ve never seen explorer crashing on Win2000 on the same machine.
So use KDE.
My windows crashes Office so many times I had to install OpenOffice … and this one is REAL. And I never had problems with Gnome on any Linux distro I tried: from Slackware to SUSE.
Maybe it’s a particular thing with your computer, and I tell you it’s not a general problem.
Maybe your Windows+Office crashes are also ‘a particular thing with your computer, and I tell you it’s not a general problem’.
I dont believe you, sorry…
I find old gnome crashes less than new gnome…. Possibly you had a bad configuration somewhere that was messing everything up since that is the only thing I can think of that might cause that….
but i would have to agree that explorer on w2000 rarely craps out if ever… now XP is a different story…
“Name the Applications Please
No flames but it is highly unlikely that a foss application is inferior to any M$ application.
PS I dont mean Debian Unstable or Experimental.”
Microsoft Office Premium
LiveMeeting
Sharepoint
Those three business applications. Quoting games like Halo and Halo2; Mechwarrior4; Asheron’s Call just seemed unfair.
Microsoft has probably discovered that the OS market is saturated. Look at how many people have failed to upgrade from W2K. If the people won’t buy WXP and soon (okay, not really) Longhorn, and buy upgrades for Office on these new OSes, maybe MS can make a buck selling them the same software for Linux. In the end, it’s only $$$ that matters. After all, they’ve never had problems selling their apps for that *other* desktop OS.
The real question is: What is MS going to do with they’ve saturated the Linux market, too?
I’ve said this before, I strongly suspect Microsoft has been kicking around a rollout of .NET on Linux for some time. Not Mono, which they would steamroll (maybe give Miguel a fat offer to move to Redmond, as an afterthought), but a new edition of the Rotor project with lots of library stuff that wasn’t available to the Mono team, and probably an improved license such as the CPL (as opposed to the “shared source” license that basically limited Rotor to university labs and engineer’s basements).
That could be a boon to shops that already specialize in .NET development. For others, torn between Java and .NET… better research Microsoft’s history on cross-platform initiatives before making a decision.
Paul G
Of course not. It makes sense that there should be some collaboratoin in order for things to interoperate.
What about the others who made deals with Microsoft?
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/tpenta?entry=has_insert_name_sold_…
Alan.
Its good to see some rational thinking coming from the “open source” camp as opposed to the FSF/GNU crowd.
Opinions are like @$$holes … I happen to feel just the opposite – imagine that.
Screw MS and the horse they rode in on … I wouldn’t use any software that eminates from Billy G – he is a crook, a liar, and has spent the last 5 years throwing millions of dollars and more than a mouthful of lies towards Linux and the coummunity … and still continue to do so.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24496
Some of you may have short memory’s but i never forget – i wouldn’t install any MS crapola even if it was free.
Microsoft released Rotor (essentially the .NET CLI) for FreeBSD (and OS X) in shared source form quite a while back.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=3A1C93FA-7…
Cohen added that proprietary software development was enormously important to the future of Linux and open source software
How?
All questions about Microsoft’s motives or actual plans for Open Source aside, it is interesting to see that they’re embracing a popular software movement that’s essentially a form of communism (the one with the little c, that looks good on paper, not the one that sends people to gulags), given that communism is designed to oppose capitalism.
Then again, as many have pointed out, licenses such as the vaunted GPL v2 apparently don’t prohibit people from making proprietary programs; they just have to release source code to customers.
“…given that communism is designed to oppose capitalism. ”
communism is not ‘designed’ to oppose capitalism. Communism according to Marx is the next stage on in the evolution of out political, economic and social ecosytem, after the inevitable (accroding to Marx) collapse of capitalism. The final stage and ‘end of history’ is socialism.
Ah, point. I’ll admit I haven’t really studied communism beyond the basics…
I don’t like propietary programs, but I would accept some of them depending of the circumstances. What I can’t tolerate are propietary document formats. I don’t want them to be held hostage by any corporation. So, no MS Office or the like for me, thank you very much.
I could see them selling a Linux version of MS Office, hell it’s got to be their most profitable piece of software ever, $499 a pop AND they ported it to Mac OSX.
Oddly enough, I think Linux would be a much easier sell to corporations if it had a FULL SPEED, NATIVE MS Office. Though many documents are PDF’d many more are still in .DOC.
As much as I love Openoffice, their CALC program is still not up to par with Excel (I’m an engineer and need better graphing capabilities and more functions.) Thing is, with every release CALC gets SIGNIFICANTLY better.
If I was Microsoft, I’d stay relevant by promoting Office on Linux in order to keep the closed file types going.
It’s very telling that when you go to buy a new computer from Dell MS Home is free (at least they don’t appear to charge extra for it.) But if you want to add MS Office it’s an extra $499.
If Dell had a Linux Option including OpenOffice, for free, or for say $10 extra, I’m willing to bet that MS Office sales would hit the floor.
I could see them selling a Linux version of MS Office, hell it’s got to be their most profitable piece of software ever, $499 a pop AND they ported it to Mac OSX.
Oddly enough, I think Linux would be a much easier sell to corporations if it had a FULL SPEED, NATIVE MS Office. Though many documents are PDF’d many more are still in .DOC.
…thus the reason why Microsoft won’t do it.
Microsoft puts up with Apple because they are a known quantity and are a fixed target. So much so that selling MSO to OSX users is a safe bet. While Darwin is widely ported, OSX itself only runs where Apple wants it to run. Linux and OSS is a threat because it is not owned by a single entity and runs everywhere. Businesses — and stock managers — hate uncertianty. OSS (including Linux) adds a level of uncertianty to Microsoft’s long-term business plans.
As much as I love Openoffice, their CALC program is still not up to par with Excel (I’m an engineer and need better graphing capabilities and more functions.) Thing is, with every release CALC gets SIGNIFICANTLY better.
Try Gnumeric. It doesn’t have great graphic capabilities, though when compaired to Excel it is much more accurate. For reference;
http://www.lfp.uba.ar/moreno/TErrores2004/MSExcel/statproc.pdf
more functions…. like what?
I would not be surprised, if people never stopped spreading rumours without a solid ground.
They have collaborated with IBM on OS/2 back in the early 90s (which could have killed Windows) Balmer even called OS/2 “Windows+”, they have collaborated on Mac software several times. They are now working with Sun. As long as they remain relevant in the future they don’t care about Windows. I wouldn’t be suprised if Blackcomb was just a graphical shell and API for existing distros.
They also have stated they will retire the NT kernel after Longhorn server. What do you think they will replace it with? OpenBSD? Darwin? Haiku? I doubt it, none of those projects have the hardware support of gnu/linux!
I doubt it, none of those projects have the hardware support of gnu/linux!
The GNU project had nothing to do with the Linux kernel. If you want to use GNU/Linux to refer to the whole system, that’s fine, but the kernel is just Linux.
I haven’t tried OpenBSD, but FreeBSD and NetBSD support nearly the same number of common hardware devices as Linux. In fact, sometimes they support them sooner, NetBSD was the first free OS to support USB.
I’ve been reading these comments, and I don’t think there’s been much talk about the, hardly arguable, point made in the second article:
KDE uses QT.
QT is only gpl compatible if you don’t sell your code.
Proprietary apps therefore have to pay to be KDE applications.
Gnome on the other hand uses the lgpl gtk.
Gtk is available for anyone to freely link against, even if they won’t show you their code and want your soul in exchange for using their program.
I think there’s also a technical reason people aren’t going to want to develop proprietary KDE apps for about another 3 years:
KDElibs requires kde init to run. That means, that when you want to go run a kde application from your favourite window manager you have to wait 1-5 minutes for it to start: That makes Mozilla seem like it pops open!
Of course, this problem will be solved by hardware, but it’s not there yet. On my, honestly aged but still common, 1.5GHz athlon it takes a good minute to start a KDE application the first time: This is forever.
Now as a proprietary developer developing for Linux/BSD you realize that you’ve got a small market share to start. Then when you cut it to a third by making it ugly for non-kde users to use you’ve lost even more share.
On the other hand. Gnome libraries, if you use them all and not just gtk, aren’t so cumbersome to load! Starting many gnome applications from KDE is very quick!
And we all know: Linux/BSD users tend to be picky.
At this point I’d hate to see kde leave qt. I don’t think KDE is any worse for the proprietary camp using gtk: KDE should be happy that gtk loads to memory pretty quickly. They should also be happy that people are trying to write look’n’feel emulators. Maybe they should start a group that tries and ports every major kde look to gtk and package them together. You can’t get it even close to the same, but it’s better than the user trying to mix and match.
Then of course, there’s always that ok/cancel button argument. Good thing Gnome HIG seems to prefer the Close button and instant application: It may be entirely different, but at least it’s obviously entirely different.