“What a mess. Less than a week after a court-approved deal ends the antitrust case, Microsoft’s back in the spotlight. The latest Halloween memo portrays your company as utterly obsessed with the open-source software movement but utterly confused about how best to proceed. I can only imagine the state of confusion. Microsoft has tried to persuade developers and users for the last four years that there’s no there there–and to no avail.” Read the editorial at ZDNet. In the meantime, Business 2.0 posted a story called “Fighting Microsoft the Open-Source Way“:
Apple, IBM, and Sun have opened up their software code to the public in their battle against Redmond. It just might work. And here is another, interesting, editorial about the DOJ settlement. Update: Another one at PCWorld.com.
Microsoft’s New Open Source Mess
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
There is a report claimed to belong Microsoft which is not confirmed by Microsoft officials. Some people claim that it is Microsoft report, which probably means that it is not. But anyway I think people like to talk against Microsoft even it means to make up stuff, like assuming that Microsoft tries to control our minds or things like that. For some people I think it is time to see a doctor.
I agree w/ Sergio above. And after reading that little article I won’t read osnews again. The editor, whether zdnet or osnews is quite short sighted.
++ People who promote open source aren’t putting their business cap on and REALLY thinking through why it will never be more than just public domain software (in America). In other countries where the free enterprise system doesn’t exist anything’s possible, but not in America’s free ENTERPRISE system. This means that people are free to MAKE MONEY, not give source code away.
Except for privacy concerns open source has no place in America. End of Story call me in 10 yrs in you need a buck!
Desktop linux is here. It will work. Red Hat 8.0, Mandrake 9, SuSE, Lycoris, Lindows (yeah yeah I know) are all ready for prime time. My boss had me get 2 new light work machines. So I said “no, don’t spend 500 bucks on these things! Get the Lindows computer from Wal-Mart.com for $200!” When they showed up it was a really nice package. I showed my boss Lindows and he loved it. It reads M$ office files, it connects with the M$ network and it does every thing we need.
So it’s ready for the low end user and all that is needed for the high end users is 3 programs.
1. Photoshop
2. Flash
3. Premiere
If those programs can run on Linux (be it via crossover or a linux port from the companies) then you will start to see a mass flock to Linux. People are tired of being tied down to their boring windows world. They are tired of not being able to customize THEIR OS. They are sick and tired of paying outrageous prices for something that is only marginally better than the previous version.
<<So it’s ready for the low end user and all that is needed for the high end users is 3 programs.
1. Photoshop
2. Flash
3. Premiere>>
I don’t understand why MUST these apps run on Linux? Is it not possible to make a better or another brand? Some people use Photoshop others Paint Shop Pro both are good. You just want so big company putting money behind Linux. Look at flash I tend to use swish it suites me well. So it’s possible to have a Flash clone and one thats better then the original one.
“Except for privacy concerns open source has no place in America. End of Story call me in 10 yrs in you need a buck!”
Go, Take a walk. You mean to say IBM, SUN, RedHat, Real aren’t in US? What illegal substance are you on?. Agreed that anti-microsoft ranting is irritating, but it works both ways!
The final reason why Open Source would/wouldn’t succeed is firmly based on ease of use, total cost of ownership and fit-for-purpose. Not raving and ranting.
All companies in America should be able to protect their “special sauce” or trade secrets, including source code and Open Source does not appear to allow. It is a misnomer. If Linux was proprietary I’d buy the hell out of it! Show me something SPECIAL that is proprietary to one version of Linux that is not protected. If it was indeed SPECIAL and “open source” it would be in competitors hands immediately (including Apple,Microsoft, and others) and would no longer be “SPECIAL.”
Save your energy. Stick with closed source, this is America – free enterprise. Linux will die if it doesn’t become proprietary. It’s too easy to compete w/ Microsoft. Open source gives you no true advantage in the end. So take a short cut and get over it.
>Stick with closed source, this is America – free enterprise.
This is not america, this is Internet.
Internet does not belong to your country, it belongs to the world.
So does Linux.
Yes it will! Because:
The OpenSource movement can not be bought out.
The OpenSource movement can not be forced out of business.
MSFT will have a hard time destroying this one.
ciao
yc
>>…And after reading that little article
>>I won’t read osnews again. …
Heeeheee!
I wish you could see how childish that statement is.
All the different licenses GPL, LGPL, MIT, BSD etc… serves their purpose. They are absolutely necessary in the industry to keep it well balanced.
ciao
yc
“The OpenSource movement can not be bought”
Yup, I’d say you pretty much summed it up, and open source will stay “not bought.” No dinero senorita! I rather pay a company a profit for the best. I do admire you charity work though, every time I copy it into my code and rewrite a few sections! Open source code has little place in a free enterprise system and revenues will continue to show it.
tootaloo
L0)
Ok here is why it will take those apps working on linux.
Gimp is nice but professionals have to use Photoshop because it’s a defacto standard. So if they have to use these programs, then it’s the only thing keeping them on windows right?
So if these apps work on Linux then the companies can cut cost and move to linux (no M$ liscensing needed) and run these apps that they need in order to do business. Now, once they are ON linux, it’s fair game. Then they can explore the other apps that are available and maybe better than their apps. It’s all about migration.
Why haven’t you moderated down the little troll who calls himself “Sam”.
As for “Sam”, the US is not even close to a freemarket system. Just look at the two examples of intervention over the last 2-3years. $US300billion farm subsidy bill spread over 10 years. Tariffs on imported steel. Those two are prime examples of why the US IS NOT A FREE MARTKET ECONOMY and never will as so long as there is a senate and congress unwilling to make the hard decisions. Add ontop of that the quotas imposed onto New Zealand Beef, lamb and dairy, and I’d go so far to say that even Cuba has a more open economy.
Linux will die because of it being opensource and did you not say that you copy sone of the Opensource code and migrate it into your programming. What plannet are you on? Opensource will survive long after the demise of Microsoft why because it empowers people with tools for exchange of information and knowledge. Microsoft does not and is not about empowering their users. Microsofts ultimate gaol is to control the flow of information and knowledge and by doing this to ultimately control information itself. Why do you think they want to kill off the internet?
As for you taking opensource code and using it in your code do you realise that you, by nature of the opensource licensing, are thus expected to open your code up to the opensource license? If you think you can get away with ripping off open code for closed purposes then you are veryy mistaken. Then again if the code you are ripping off is from the BSD license then you like Apple and Microsoft are more than welcomed to use it for your greedy enterprises.
In a nutshell and why the Great US of A will go the way of the Dodo, resouces and knowledge are to be shared out for all. Not for the few. It makes for a better world and one where things like Terrorism would be redundant.
What? can’t you take a little freedom of speech?
The term Freemarket is much different than Free Enterprise. A free market appears to exist when there is healthy competition and the consumer has choice. And you are so right, special interest gives free enterprise a bad name. Until kickbacks and campaign contributions end, government policy will continue to be for sale, and not do things in the best interest of the people on a equal footing w/ business.
I would submit that the US is less corrupt than most countries. And no I’m not including .au in the bunch.
I know you guys hate it when us “trolls” get it right:)
Greed and compassion are in everyone and you are not going to change human nature to just have compassion and no greed. It is against our survival instincts. Monetary systems and trade secrets have been around for ages. We all wish the world was a better place and you can certainly respect compassion but “resources and knowledge” are not for all. Monetary systems and trade is the basis for how we interact, few people do not work all day long to give the goods away for free.
By the way, I can’t stand microsoft:) I rather see them have a few competitors and some standards as opposed to “open source.” I was just yanking your chain on the copying source code.LOL! Sorry I’m cruel:)
your friend,
the troll:)
Sam, In America, we have a basic freedom to speak. You have no right however to be heard. Don’t go around saying “Can’t you take a little freedom of speech?” because in a private website you have no right to be heard. So if you want to speak your idiocies then go out side and yell it to the birds.
what some of you guys are missing is that Most of the people involved with linux or any other opensource project are doing it as a hobby. Not to make money off of it.
Most of them are in it to gain more programming knowledge. or for the fun of it. or just because they can.
Open source will never die. Unless microsoft some how changes the law making it illegal to Program out side of a corporation.
They keep sending em in, and we keep grinding em up.
Open Source software is kicking Microsoft’s butt and they are running scared. Running scared from a competitor that they cannot buy, bully, or bend. A competitor, whose goals completely confound the CHIEF SOFTWARE ARCHITECT.
Welcome to the party Sam from Austin, maybe you will fare better than your predecessors.
(yawn)
http://www.perfecteconomy.com/
Guys like Sam appear to have a distinct lack of balance. The license or model you choose is really dependent on what you are trying to accomplish. There is nothing unamerican about OSS after all it gives a lot of people freedom.
At the end of the day OSS has helped many companies and countries, has given an enormous amount of freedom to individuals and is the only thing keeping MS honest (sort of). The Justice department certainly hasn’t.
That aside Free, OSS (BSD, GPL licenses), Shareware, fully Commercial all have their place. Just evaluate each situation on its merits. Even MS is learning this by opening up some of the source.
The better the quality of completely free software the better the value adders(RH, SuSE, etc) and closed vendors(MS, Adobe, etc) had better be.
Its really great and hopefully will bring more choice and quality to the market.
oh, Sam.
I haven’t seen any real inovation from the Open Source community. For example there is no killer app on Linux. I feel is just the sum of best technologies out there and thrown into a cheap package.
Andrew is quite right depending on what you are trying to do.
I keep hearing about open source vs. microsoft and that is quite an apples and oranges.
I think that open source is a nice effort for ? something. But don’t project this stuff into the ultimate solution. Hobbies is just fine. And, ANDREW is exactly right they all have a place and all can do something for America. But for business, I don’t want it free. I got money to spend. But if you are going to put them in the commercial arena then use good business sense. If you tell me you have an advanced proprietary solution, then I’ll listen. Every business owner knows that if you give away your secrets then you are likely to lose to your competition.
Cut the Microsoft bashing and give me a reason to write you a check. I don’t want open source. I want competition.
Torrey: I don’t expect ever to be heard. Free enterprise means that this website has the write to censor my comments. It is their right and it certainly wouldn’t offend me. We all have freedom of speech here so don’t crap on it.
Just because you don’t like the tone you should try to censor it. What a terrible thought. Just agree or disagree. Geez
Yada Yada if you can change the laws and human nature over the next 20 years then there’s a chance, otherwise we’re stuck w/ free enterprise and variations of current laws. I don’t mind either.
I was hoping someone could give me a legitimate reason to care about open source for business but most people either bash Microsoft or give me the good samaritan socialist point of view. Nobody seems to say “we are a proprietary competitor” to Microsoft and are better.
Why call it open source? just call it public domain.
Before you look for a good “killer app” see what kind of business model they have. There’s nothing wrong with the charity work they’re doing, it’s admirable but give them a chance. Maybe they’ll figure out that 10% of people’s efforts generally are for charity, not 90%. From what I hear, lord linux has already figured this out and will take back future kernels in another year.
Competition and self-preserverence brings out the best in people, not compassion. Although compassion is quite admirable.
Ask most people: if you had an extra $2K in the bank, would you give it to charity or go on a vacation. There’s your answer.
Sam: the business advantage is when you can offer a solution (proprietary or not) that gives more value for money to the customer thanks to “open source”.
If you improved some of the programs/libraries used to develop this solution to suit your needs (you can’t with proprietary tools) then you probably don’t want to maintain all these changes locally and so you give it back to the projects and everyone benefit from it (and you still get your money for your solution).
The only people that have turned it into the “commercial software vs. OSS” is Microsoft, plain and simple. They’re the ones who started the “GNU is a cancer”, “GNU will lead to the total distruction of the universe”, “GNU is communist”, “GNU has rabbies”, “GNU smells”, “GNU is hippie”, “GNU is un-American”.
Every other software vendor is quite happy, out there, producing better software and competiting with other companies and “communities” to developer better software. I haven’t seen Adobe complain that they have a competitor in the high end film market, in the form of GIMP Film. I don’t see Corel complain that OpenOffice exists. I don’t see XIG complain that KDE and GNOME are given away, and they charge $49.95 for CDE for Linux. What are these commercial producers response? produce a better product. Justify to the customer why they should spend the extra bit of money buying their product. That could be either in the form of “better technical support”, “willingness to listen to customer comments”, “better value in the form of documentation and community support”. These are what companies can claim as to why people should buy their products.
What is Microsoft’s response? whindge and complain. That is all they do. Instead of taking it on the chin and saying “this is a new competitor using a different model, lets deliver value to the customer so that they feel like they are getting their $1299 worth when they buy Office”. How about better technical support for one thing, more friendly licensing to customers who don’t use the software for commercial use. There are a tonne of things Microsoft can compete on.
I’m really very sick of all this “America = money-making” BS, especially from the American wanna-be businessmen that worship this so-called American dream. No. That’s NOT what being in America is all about.
I’ve noticed that it’s mostly these people,quick to defend the behavior of corporate America, who also defend Microsoft’s “right to innovate.” Making those ignorant and blind “You only hate them because they’re sucessful” kind of arguments. Then, just to cover their butts and make sure they don’t get labeled as a Microsoft-lover, they quick thrown in some kind of “I’m not saying I love Microsoft” phrase.
We all wish the world was a better place and you can certainly respect compassion but “resources and knowledge” are not for all.
Wishing does not make something so. You must act. Simply acknowledging the world’s shortcomings and then not changing your own behavior in the slightest does nothing to change the reality.
I like to believe that we MAKE the world what it is. If you just follow along like a pack of cattle, you don’t get to excuse yourself by saying “that’s how the world is.”
And what’s this “resources and knowledge are not for all” phrase supposed to mean?
No, this isn’t relevant to the story topic. I should be modded down. I don’t really care, though, because I’m so sick of all this ignorant money-worshiping, corporate greed-justifying nonsense being offered as wisdom to those of us that “just don’t get what America is all about.” It’s not just in this thread. It’s running rampant on this site among a select group of posters who are, unsurprisingly, the most vocal.
This is a privately own medium. You do not have the freedom of speech here. You have to follow the rules. If Matthew thinks you are violating the rules, don’t use freedom of speech. Prove you are innocent in violating these rules.
On free enterprise and free market, free enterprise means that a country allows individuals to create their own company with their own aim. America has one law against free enterprise, anti trust laws which punishes successful companies, whether you think it is good or bad.
As for free market, even the Democratic Federation of Micronesia has a freer market than the US of A. (btw, to the rest of you guys, try not to confuse free trade and free market).
rajan: As for free market, even the Democratic Federation of Micronesia has a freer market than the US of A. (btw, to the rest of you guys, try not to confuse free trade and free market).
Agreed.
America has one law against free enterprise, anti trust laws which punishes successful companies, whether you think it is good or bad.
Being a monopoly isn’t illegal. Abusing that status is illegal. Microsoft or anyone else could be a monopoly as much as they want unless it can be proven they’ve used that status to give themselves “unfair” advantage.
At least, that’s the way it’s supposed to work. There’s always going to be someone who thinks everything is unfair and some lawyers more than willing to test the legal waters every time the monopoly even glances at them.
On free enterprise and free market, free enterprise means that a country allows individuals to create their own company with their own aim. America has one law against free enterprise, anti trust laws which punishes successful companies, whether you think it is good or bad.
—
Do I need to point another person to the holy bible of “Wealth of Nations” by Adam Smith? Even the father of modern laize faire economics dictates that there needs to be checks and balances to ensure that the market system, that is, the invisible hand, is not tampered with.
Microsoft is a monopoly, a market monopoly to be completely correct. One COULD say, however, that it has natural monopoly on the desktop due to the high costs on entry to the marketplace, however, I won’t get into a market vs. natural monopoly. Anyway, it has been proven that they are a monopoly. That alone is not illegal. What is illegal however, is what they have done WHILE they are a monopoly, which includes exclusive contracts with OEM vendors, threatening or intimidating ISVs and OEM’s who wish to move beyond what Microsoft’s considers “acceptable modification to the desktop experience”. I can give you two recent examples, Compaq what threatened by Microsoft when they decided to pre-load machines with Netscape as the default browser. Another example is Acer, who designed and developed a easy to use desktop, based on large pictures and lots of multi-media. They were threatened by Microsft, and as a result, future Acer desktops no longer carried the software.
The above alone, they may be able to get out of it, however, the exclusive contracts is a different matter. It essentially ensured that no competitors can make a case to OEM’s why they should offer their OS too. Microsoft NEVER DENIED making such exclusive contracts. Infact, a recent interview with the manager of the Windows devision claimed that by blocking out alternative OS’s from the desktop, it would stop the customer from being confused. Need I emphasise WHO SHOULD be the one deciding what they want on the computer.
to the rest of you guys, try not to confuse free trade and free market
—
Ok, I gave previously examples of hypocracy in the US’s freetrade policy, however, in freemarket, there is:
1) Price Guarantee
2) Subsidies
No, and am not confused. In a freemarket economy, the supply and demand is dictated by the invisiable hand. The US’s trade policy also affects the local market. Through subsidies, artificially devaluing the price of goods due to over production, Price Guarantee schemes that ensure that no matter what the market price, the producer always receives the same amount. Remove the subsidies that cause over production and the end result is that the cost of that particular good increase up to the real market price.
The defence tender process which is another example. Had Blaire not got into bed with GWB, BAE would NEVER had gotten the contract for the US Airforce, instead it would have been back to the old, “Swap-a-roo” game, where by contracts are mearly swapped between MD and Boeing. Result of this? with out any real competiting tenders, the market is artificially turned into a duopoly with two players making super normal profits because there is no competition, hence, no reason to cut costs, become more efficient and reduce prices on their defence hardware.
Some forms of market interferance is socially desirable, such as setting a minimum wage, which ensures that people are paid, what is regarded by society, a socially acceptable wage. What is the end result of this? the end result, we have unemployment, due to the fact that because of the minimum wage, the market can’t act by reducing the cost of labour down to market clearance. Depending on the supply and demand of a particular skill in the market place, this marketclearance could be as low as $2 for unskilled labour due to the high supply and low demand.
I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle off all the rants and raves by Microstf zealots that think opensource is a waste and open source zealots that think Microsoft is Satan.
For the open source purists, Linux will not take over the desktop or grab a significant market share from Microsoft any time soon, as some predict. It has been proven that Linux desktop users do not want to pay for software, especially when you can get decent tools to do the job for free. That is why there is hesitation for software vendors to port applications to Linux. Linux still has a long way to go in terms of usability for the average user. Also the splintered, fragmented community is good in many respects ( for example KDE/Qt and Gnome/GTK), but bad when it comes to business. Just wait and see, M$ will dominate the desktop for at least the next 5-10 years. Linux and OSX will take take a bigger slice of the pie though, (maybe a good 30% to give M$ a reason to drop its crappy licensing scheme!).
For the Microsoft purists, wake up. Those of you that say where are the killer apps or what use is open source need to read up before making comments like that. Just take some time and read some LinuxToday articles about what open source is doing in the real world. It dominates web servers; it’s used for high end work (Industrial Light and Magic used open source to do all the special effects rendering in Lord of the Rings); Yahoo uses PHP and MySQL;
several federal agencies in the U.S. use Linux, OpenOffice, and much more (eg the U.S. department of energy uses Linux clusters for its nuclear modeling programs); Amazon.com uses boxed and custom open sourse apps to run it’s business; Red Hat, Zope Corp., MySQL AB and others are doing quite well.
I use Red Hat 8, and XP Pro side my side, and I use the box that has the tools I need depending on what I’m working on. I think there is enough room in the busines world for open source and the traditional commercial software model. I’m no expert so please don’t flame me to bad, I’m just staing what I think is the obvious.
I completely agree. I am running RIGHT NOW Windows 2000 Server, IE 6, Office 2000 Professional and some other applications, and I don’t have sort of Jihad against Microsoft.
Unfortunately, people tie the actions of a particular organisation to what someone does as a job. For example, Microsoft says something, then the Linux zealots come out of the woodworks claiming that all people who use Windows think that way. Same can be said about Windows zealots and their reaction to what Stallman says, claiming that all people who use Linux think that way.
Get a life! its a friggin OS. There is more to life than going around making up stories and claiming XYZ sucks and that all should move to something else because you said so. I see the same on both Linux and Windows zealot camps. Linux camps claiming they have servers with 10,000 days of uptime, and Windows 2000 camps claiming they’re never seen a problem in the 2 years running it.
Both are stable, both have their role within an organisation. If people don’t want to use a particular OS, then, it is their choice. I certainly don’t expect all and sundry to move to the OS’s or software I think is good. As for Microsoft’s record on product quality that is normally attacked by zealots, having both used Windows 2000 Pro/Server and Redhat GNU/Linux 8.0, both of them are as stable and reliable as each other. I’ve never had a kernel panic, XServer crash or a BSOD using any of these operating systems. The people who do have problems with these operating systems are using crap hardware, installed tonnes of gimmick programmes that stuff around with the registry settings and god knows what and to top it all off, they install the latest bleeding edge drivers for their hardware.
If you keep to the standard software, quality hardware and WHQL signed drivers, you computer will be as rock solid as the mythical uncrashable Linux servers out there.
Some forms of market interferance is socially desirable, such as setting a minimum wage
I am sure you are aware that, that is a highly debateable issue. I am not convinced that either is always the right policy. Even if you were to set a minumum wage, where should it be set.
– above the lowest wage being earned or above.
The last time the US upped its minimum wage economists thought it a non issue because nobody was earning less than the new minimum wage.
That said there are other policies are less debateable, such as preventing dumping that results from other nations over capacity which could destroy a national industry.
> Linux will die if it doesn’t become proprietary.
Sorry, Sam. I think you’re all wet on this one. The
non-proprietary nature of Linux is precisely why it’s
been able to be such a thorn in Microsoft’s side for
so long. There is no one to buy, threaten or intimidate.