The IT Ninja

I recently came across this article stating Microsoft's intentions as it relates to open-source OSs.

Microsoft's announcement last week that it was forming a wholly owned subsidiary dedicated to forging stronger ties with the open source world took more than a few observers by surprise.

After all, this is the company that once called open source software a “cancer,” that has asserted repeated patent claims against Linux and other open source software, and that has resorted to a multiplicity of scare tactics to drive potential users away from open source alternatives to its own products.

What are your thoughts on this move, do you think that they really can commit? And if they do, what are the possible implications of this decision?

The entire article can be found here: http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/253949/microsoft_and_openness_can_it_really_commit.html

Hi Berks,

thanks for link, I'm a big supporter of open source. I've bookmarked that article to read later, sounds very interesting.

I know perhaps its a bit judgemental of me to say this, but I always look at Microsoft with a lot of caution. But you never know, we are living in times of change.

I'll get back to you once I've read it.

I first heard of Microsoft's involvement in open source quite some time back when Microsoft took part in a Linux project. I think Microsoft also gave some financial support. Personally I am suspicious of Microsoft's intentions.

I think the suspicion is very valid indeed, based on their history it does not bode well for them. "Internet Explorer" was deliberately broken and made proprietary to keep their leverage in the market.

Much to the frustration to web developers world wide! Although to their credit they have finally made a more standard compliant browser by means of IE9 and beyond. However this may be too little to late.

This really caught me off-guard as I remember back in 2001 Microsoft's CEO went as far as branding Open source software as a Cancer, stating that it "Contaminates all other software with Hippie GPL rubbish." I personally think that they have ulterior motives for this move.

berks wrote:This really caught me off-guard as I remember back in 2001 Microsoft's CEO went as far as branding Open source software as a Cancer, stating that it "Contaminates all other software with Hippie GPL rubbish." I personally think that they have ulterior motives for this move.

That's not surprising these are two different worlds:

Closed Source

How can we make money?

Open Source

How can we improve, and share knowledge?

They have different priorities, that's not to say that you can't make money from open source and vice versa. But ultimately they are borne out of different desires.

What ever Microsoft do, will with out a doubt be because it makes them a profit, after all they are a business.

Open source is about ideas, and not about making money (that's just a bonus).

Found this article and think it is a good followup to the one above.

Microsoft's history with open source is checkered at best. Its initial strategy in the late '90s, leaked in the Halloween Documents, was to attempt to undermine and attack open source, partly by funding SCO's attacks on Linux. Back then Steve Ballmer famously called Linux "a cancer that attaches itself ... to everything it touches" (actually meaning all open source and not just Linux) and has never to my knowledge recanted.

http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/the-real-reason-behind-microsofts-leap-open-source-191251

It could just be that they have finally figured out how to make money from open source. Even if that's true, that still means their main motivation is making money. True open source programmers do it first for the pleasure of getting something done well. And the money comes later.

Since we are aware of the past records of Microsoft, we could not help but to have doubts on their motives in going open-source. Let's wait for further development on this issue. I hope Microsoft isn't cooking anything fishy.

Personally, I despise Microsoft. The only reason I use windows is for gaming. That's it. If it wasn't for PC gaming, I wouldn't even consider Windows as an OS option.

berks	Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:10 pm
Rank: Grasshopper Posts: 4 Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:55 pm	I recently came across this article stating Microsoft's intentions as it relates to open-source OSs. Microsoft's announcement last week that it was forming a wholly owned subsidiary dedicated to forging stronger ties with the open source world took more than a few observers by surprise. After all, this is the company that once called open source software a “cancer,” that has asserted repeated patent claims against Linux and other open source software, and that has resorted to a multiplicity of scare tactics to drive potential users away from open source alternatives to its own products. What are your thoughts on this move, do you think that they really can commit? And if they do, what are the possible implications of this decision? The entire article can be found here: http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/253949/microsoft_and_openness_can_it_really_commit.html

Ron F	Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:27 pm
Rank: Advisor Posts: 41 Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:44 pm	Hi Berks, thanks for link, I'm a big supporter of open source. I've bookmarked that article to read later, sounds very interesting. I know perhaps its a bit judgemental of me to say this, but I always look at Microsoft with a lot of caution. But you never know, we are living in times of change. I'll get back to you once I've read it.

Victor Leigh	Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:12 am
Rank: Junior Posts: 62 Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:31 am	I first heard of Microsoft's involvement in open source quite some time back when Microsoft took part in a Linux project. I think Microsoft also gave some financial support. Personally I am suspicious of Microsoft's intentions.

Mark73	Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:06 pm
Rank: Apprentice Posts: 112 Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:44 am	I think the suspicion is very valid indeed, based on their history it does not bode well for them. "Internet Explorer" was deliberately broken and made proprietary to keep their leverage in the market. Much to the frustration to web developers world wide! Although to their credit they have finally made a more standard compliant browser by means of IE9 and beyond. However this may be too little to late.

__darknite	Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:26 am
Rank: Junior Posts: 88 Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:07 pm	berks wrote:This really caught me off-guard as I remember back in 2001 Microsoft's CEO went as far as branding Open source software as a Cancer, stating that it "Contaminates all other software with Hippie GPL rubbish." I personally think that they have ulterior motives for this move. That's not surprising these are two different worlds: Closed Source How can we make money? Open Source How can we improve, and share knowledge? They have different priorities, that's not to say that you can't make money from open source and vice versa. But ultimately they are borne out of different desires. What ever Microsoft do, will with out a doubt be because it makes them a profit, after all they are a business. Open source is about ideas, and not about making money (that's just a bonus).

The IT Ninja

Microsoft to go open-source

Who is online

berks	Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:21 am
Rank: Grasshopper Posts: 4 Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:55 pm	This really caught me off-guard as I remember back in 2001 Microsoft's CEO went as far as branding Open source software as a Cancer, stating that it "Contaminates all other software with Hippie GPL rubbish." I personally think that they have ulterior motives for this move.

berks	Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:53 pm
Rank: Grasshopper Posts: 4 Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:55 pm	Found this article and think it is a good followup to the one above. Microsoft's history with open source is checkered at best. Its initial strategy in the late '90s, leaked in the Halloween Documents, was to attempt to undermine and attack open source, partly by funding SCO's attacks on Linux. Back then Steve Ballmer famously called Linux "a cancer that attaches itself ... to everything it touches" (actually meaning all open source and not just Linux) and has never to my knowledge recanted. http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/the-real-reason-behind-microsofts-leap-open-source-191251

Victor Leigh	Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:38 am
Rank: Junior Posts: 62 Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:31 am	It could just be that they have finally figured out how to make money from open source. Even if that's true, that still means their main motivation is making money. True open source programmers do it first for the pleasure of getting something done well. And the money comes later.

Jamie	Wed May 02, 2012 5:18 am
Rank: Advisor Posts: 30 Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:02 am	Since we are aware of the past records of Microsoft, we could not help but to have doubts on their motives in going open-source. Let's wait for further development on this issue. I hope Microsoft isn't cooking anything fishy.

Smokey	Thu May 31, 2012 1:18 am
Rank: Advisor Posts: 29 Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:58 pm Location: NY Website	Personally, I despise Microsoft. The only reason I use windows is for gaming. That's it. If it wasn't for PC gaming, I wouldn't even consider Windows as an OS option.