Get three services for $100/mo
July 11, 2005 4:00 AM PDT
Microsoft learns to live with open source
- Related Stories
-
Microsoft looks to extinguish LAMP
June 15, 2005 -
Open-source companies chase steady money
April 5, 2005 -
Microsoft to release more source code?
February 7, 2005 -
Gates taking a seat in your den
January 5, 2005 -
Open source's next frontier
November 22, 2004 -
Microsoft raps open-source approach
May 3, 2001
That led to a meeting at Microsoft's Redmond, Wash., headquarters, where the software giant decided to provide Walker with a business mentor and Internet hosting. But Walker had one important stipulation: He insisted that his Web content management system, built atop Microsoft's Windows and .Net software, be free and open source.
Surprisingly, Microsoft--once the sworn enemy of open source--went along. "They've been supportive in many ways," said Walker. "To be competitive, they have to adapt to the changing landscape."
What's new:
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer once decried Linux and open source as a "cancer." But the company has gradually softened its stance, showing more willingness of late to adopt open-source development techniques and interoperate with open-source products.
Bottom line:
Microsoft's shift in attitude toward open-source is pragmatic. The company has learned to better compete against open-source products, but overall it remains opposed to the economic model.
Chief Executive Steve Ballmer once famously called Linux and the open-source philosophy a "cancer." Now it's a fact of life in the software business.
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.
For example, Microsoft customers can oversee Linux servers with Microsoft's management software, and they will eventually be able to run Linux and Windows on the same machine--a startling change from previous policies. Over the past year, Microsoft has also released a number of development tools with their source code--a practice the company said it intends to continue and expand.
To be sure, the moves are more self-serving than philosophical. By accommodating open source, Microsoft endears itself to potential corporate customers, notably software developers, and it better understands its open-source competitors.
Ballmer has even changed the rhetoric: "We compete with products. We don't compete with movements," he said in a recent interview.
Getting a handle on open source
Many industry pundits contend that open source poses the biggest competitive threat Microsoft has ever encountered. The model of making software freely available and allowing changes to the source code hasn't yet radically altered some products, such as Microsoft's powerful desktop software franchise.
"They've been supportive in many ways. To be competitive, they have to adapt to the changing landscape."
software engineer
Microsoft responded to Linux specifically with its "Get the Facts" campaign in 2003, which looks to quantify the overall cost, or total cost of ownership, of freely available Linux software versus Windows Server.
In its product development, Microsoft has segmented the areas where Linux, as well as other products, such as the Apache Web server, are strong and has sought to match those offerings' features head-on.
These more measured competitive tactics stand in contrast to the reaction Microsoft executives displayed a few years ago as Linux's popularity grew.
In 2001, chairman Bill Gates, for example, cautioned against the "Pac-Man-like nature" of the general public license (GPL), which is used with Linux and many other freely available open-source products.
Since then, however, the open-source industry has matured and become more commercial, which has helped crystallize who Microsoft's competitors are. Instead of combating the Linux and open-software "movement," Microsoft can now target established companies, such as Red Hat, Novell or MySQL.
"We've moved from being more emotional and more reactive," said
See more CNET content tagged:
open source,
Steve Ballmer,
Linux,
Linux server,
Microsoft Corp.
"Software Manufacturing" vendors such as Microsoft and IBM are making moves which on the surface look like they accommodating, but I believe this is a distraction away from the harmful political activism they are engaged in around technology policy.
While Balmer was quoted as saying "We compete with products. We don't compete with movements", the "software manufacturing" movement has changed its anti-competitive techniques away from technical work to the political and legal activism. Rather than trying to offer the best software at the best price, they are actively lobbing to change Patent and Copyright laws to favor (or mandate) "software manufacturing".
Shared Source is neither shared, nor open.
MS is steadily losing out to OS because they still don't get it. People are tired of overpaying for software that is buggy, unsecure and bloated.
They are reacting to what open source does, not trying to compete and that is where they are screwing up. Their web browser is a perfect example. Firefox has taken a noticable chunk of market share, and how does MS compete? Putting in a lame tabbed feature for IE6, when tabs are not the main reason for its popularity. It is its security. MS is finally getting with solid programming practices and making IE7 a standalone app, but who knows if it can match the security of other browsers. The history of Microsoft says it can't, but time will tell and will be a strong indicator if they have learned anything and are going to legitimately compete or merely react.
B. The Screaming Penquins to lose the "Hate Microsoft" religion.
'Nuff said.
- tabs
-
by Bill Dautrive
July 13, 2005 10:31 AM PDT
- Tabs are bells and whistles, they are nice, but hardly critical. For any app that uses an internet connection, security is #1. For every other app, it is still important.
-
Reply to this comment
View
reply
-
-
See all 23 Comments >>Why are there so many problems with security? Viruses, worms, phishing, buffer attack exploits, ect, are caused by 2 things: inept programmers(or management forcing out software that isn't finished) and stupid end users who don't want to learn anything other then how to click on buttons and links.
GUI's are nice, but does not make learning basic computing knowlege like using the command line and configuring your computer obsolete.
Who said I base security off a browser. It is not everything you need to do but is important. But if someone is not concerned enough with security of a browser is unlikely to be concerned about firewalls, good passwords, ect. I never said the browser is the first line of defense, perhaps you should learn to comprehend.
Saying no software is secure is true, but not trying to make it perfect is unexcusable. Most people who say what you said usually know little to nothing about programming. Did you know that the #1 abused exploit is buffer overflow? Do you know how simple it is to avoid it? The #1 exploit is one that every sophomore computer science student knows how to avoid.
Most bugs and security problems are due to not paying attention and missing something elementary, but something complex and easy to miss.
Yes, anyone who defends Microsoft is an idiot, and/or somehow has a financial interest in them, directly or indirectly. Defending their shoddy programs is not a smart thing. Defending their insular attitude in regards to interoperability is not a smart thing. Defending their illegal and moral business decisions is not a smart thing. With very few exceptions, every piece MS software is the most buggy, bloated, expensive, and unsecure in its respective category. How can anyone defend that?