×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Keeps Eye on Open-Source Prize

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the never-ending-duel dept.

Open Source 119

Rob writes to tell us that at the recent Open Source Business Conference in San Francisco Microsoft's director of platform technology strategy, Bill Hilf, outlined why Microsoft is staying involved with open source. From the article: "Challenges of working [coopetively] in the open-source space include the balance between competing and cooperating with a rival, he said. Perception also is a 'big' challenge for the software giant. 'In many regards, the Microsoft open-source story lends itself to a great metaphor of David and Goliath,' he said. 'That is a challenge over perception.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

119 comments

Error in title, please fix (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14761898)

Should read "Microsoft Keeps Eye on Open-Source PR"

Re:Error in title, please fix (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762034)

More like Open Source Numbers. Back in 1998/1999, MS was telling everybody that OSS would never compete against MS. At that time, their PR ppl at gartner, ihs, Pc World, etc,were coming up with number such as OSS would own less than 1% of the internet (not even servers) by the year 2005.

Starting in 2000, MS changed tunes when they found out that thir minions had been drinking MS kool-aid and the web was already owned by Apache, with Linux already on some odd 16% of all web servers.

Re:Error in title, please fix (3, Insightful)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762119)

Back in 1998/1999, MS was telling everybody that OSS would never compete against MS

I would argue that's still the case. OSS (and by that you mean Linux) has targeted the traditional Unix market and done very little to compete with Microsoft's installed base. So, MS lost a huge growth opportunity with all those 'obsolete' Unix/RISC servers going away, but has done very well growing their natural base of desktops/groupware/file+print/intranet despite Linux.

NEW POLL, PLEASE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14762512)

Can we get a new poll topic? The current poll [slashdot.org] has been neglected for so long, the discussion's been archived since last week.

Fucking Slashdot. The minute Digg gets threaded/moderated commenting, I tell you, this place is gonna be a ghost town.

On target (4, Funny)

Jordan Catalano (915885) | more than 8 years ago | (#14761906)

Microsoft views open source through the lens of "coopetition from commercial and open-source strategies at the same time," Hilf said.

Did he mean to say "through the lens of a high-powered rifle's croshairs"?

Re:On target (3, Insightful)

mqj (949877) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762479)

I didn't think you could fit chairs into a rifle.

Re:On target (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14763508)

finaly a ballmer chair joke thats actuly funny!

sir if i had mod points i would give them to you.

Freudian slip!!! (4, Funny)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 8 years ago | (#14761914)

Challenges of working [coopetively] in the open-source space include the balance between competing and cooperating with a rival,

never a truer word spoken... Microsoft loves to coopt software... hates giving back though... just absolutely loves the BSD license

Re:Freudian slip!!! (2, Funny)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 8 years ago | (#14761985)

>> .. just absolutely loves the BSD license

Is that the EULA that comes with windows Blue Screen of Death?

Re:Freudian slip!!! (2, Interesting)

Hieronymus Howard (215725) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762066)

In fact, the dictionary [answers.com] has two appropriate definitions of co-opt:

To take or assume for one's own use
To neutralize or win over through assimilation

Re:Freudian slip!!! (2, Funny)

kurzweilfreak (829276) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762499)

Somehow, "Resistance is futile. You will be co-opted." just doesn't sound right, although in some ways, it still fails to lose its sinister tone when you think of who might possibly utter these words.

*looks up at the top of the page and gets a chill*

I guess that... (4, Funny)

Avillia (871800) | more than 8 years ago | (#14761916)

A large blue screen saying there was a critical error at 0x000000 is a 'A challenge over perception.' as well? /had to be done.

It's not a bug, it's a feature. (2, Insightful)

twitter (104583) | more than 8 years ago | (#14763422)

The whole perception modification thing has problems, despite massive effort, because people have memories. They can run all the adverts of happy teachers they want, people remember them suing public school systems because teachers coppied a text editor [linuxtoday.com]. Attempts to kiss up to "open source" developers simmilarly fail over when they turn aroung and pull an SCO. Their current business model requires exclusion of the, "what's your's is ours and what's ours is ours," kind. By this point, the only reason any one in tech has any empathy for M$ can only be explained in terms of hostage snydrome [google.com].

Re:It's not a bug, it's a feature. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14763653)

Hmmm, interesting that you use that as a "M$ is evil" bullet point. Are you familiar with the specifics of the case? The school district was engaged in sytematic, wide-spread piracy of the Office product, and they were "outed" by one of their IT staff that was let go. It wasn't Microsoft that sued the district, it was the BSA, which will also come after you if you pirate AutoCAD or WordPerfect. It's hardly Microsoft's private enforcement agency.

The settlement with the BSA was a infinitesimal drop in the bucket compared to California's massive education budget, a large portion of which must be said is wrongly spent providing services to illegal aliens. I suggest you head on over to the California Department of Education's website and look at how much money they manage (billions), and compare that to the BSA settlement amount (a few hundred of thousand). It's not like the children of the great state of California didn't learn math because of evil Bill Gates. Give me a break.

We all have strong feelings about "piracy" as an expresion of copyright infringement, but the bottom line is that under current law it is illegal and the school district involved knew damn well they were violating a license agreement. Bad or evil, it's still illegal. If you don't want to play by their rules then don't use their software. So now they're looking at alternatives - that's all well and good, but why didn't they do that in the first place instead of breaking laws?

I love how you use the phrase "teachers copied a text editor" to conveniently disguise the fact that the district was engaged in widespread copyright infringement - that's great PR! The poor teachers, they were walking 5 miles in the snow barefooted both ways at 4:00 AM and they "copied a text editor". Wow! If you ever find yourself unemployed you should work as a copy editor for Faux News.

hostage snydrome.

Nice troll though.

The only reason MS is interested (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14761917)


is so they can steal/crib the real innovators ideas

i would hate to think how much OSS code they have incorporated into Windows, perhaps thats why they are doing everything they can to not release the source to the EU

Re:The only reason MS is interested (4, Informative)

niskel (805204) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762000)

Umm... I dont thin the EU wanted the source at all, they wanted proper specs and documentation for the SMB protocol (?). MS was trying to avoid giving anyone anything useful by licensing the Windows source for lots of cash and a very restrictive lisence that would not actually let FOSS use any knowledge gained from the source. On top of that, there is still no good specs/docs for SMB, which was what was asked for in the beginning.

Re:The only reason MS is interested (3, Informative)

rs232 (849320) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762355)

Just using the conference to confuse, confound and inject a little fud ..

"I personally don't believe tech support calls for a commodity product is sustainable,"

No one ever made money out of Open Source ..

"In many regards, the Microsoft open-source story lends itself to a great metaphor of David and Goliath," "That is a challenge over perception"

One way of meeting the challenge is to hire on the best out of Open Source taking them out of the Gene pool.

"Microsoft has benefited from OSS, has participated in OSS projects, and feels that OSS will continue to have an important role in the ecosystem" [slashdot.org]

Pronouncments like this also give the impression that MS is in some way directing the development of the Open Source model. That and the use of the word 'open' at every opportunity. It's called stealing mindshare.

"We have an impact from what people call the ripple effect ... What would actually happen if we were in that environment?"

We hope to gain some control over that environment by engaging with it. He also had this to say previously ..

When we think about criteria around interoperability, we will have a great foundation in Longhorn to help exercise the criteria around that." [techworld.com]

Open Source does not equal Open Standards [slashdot.org].

But MS Open Standards does not actually mean the protocols and interfaces are in the public domain does it. A royalty free license is still tied to Microsoft. But keep on repeating the word 'open'.

"Linux is somewhat inferior to commercial offerings when considered as a general-purpose desktop operating system"

I'm sorry Bill, but you just lost your credibility. (Sent from a SuSE Desktop. No viruses, no blue screens etc ..)

http://fudwatcher.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

Re:The only reason MS is interested (2, Funny)

peterfa (941523) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762864)

M$ actually doesn't know anything about it's own SMB protocol. That's probably why the information they gave up was confusing and why network drives don't really work well.

Coopetition (3, Insightful)

Tx (96709) | more than 8 years ago | (#14761933)

Coopetition, or simultaneously cooperating and competing with rivals, has long been Microsoft's broader business strategy.

So that's what they call it. Translating the doublespeak, is that a euphemism for "Buying the companies whose IP you need, and crushing everyone else" perchance?

Re:Coopetition (4, Insightful)

Kijori (897770) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762011)

No, I think it means pretending to cooperate and then forcing them out of business - a euphemism for 'embrace and extend'.

Re:Coopetition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14763865)

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

Re:Coopetition (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762078)

Michael Corleone:"...My father taught me many things here - he taught me in this room. He taught me - keep your friends close but your enemies closer."

Re:Coopetition (1)

kjart (941720) | more than 8 years ago | (#14763495)

"Buying the companies whose IP you need, and crushing everyone else"

Isn't that every company's strategy or am I missing something?

Re:Coopetition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14763985)

From the parent"or am I missing something?"

Your friends? Just trying to help....

perceptions (3, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#14761950)

Perception also is a 'big' challenge for the software giant.

Indeed. Many people "perceive" their software to be bloated and buggy.

Staying involved = SCO (1, Redundant)

wardk (3037) | more than 8 years ago | (#14761964)

hilarious.

they only involvement in open source is to kill it, regardless of what the method actually appears to be doing.

Market through a mirror (2, Interesting)

chrisbeach (887853) | more than 8 years ago | (#14761980)

You could say that when Microsoft paddles in OSS water (e.g. SourceSafe vs CVS/Subversion) it has the market disadvantage of charging consumers for products that are free elsewhere.

And when OSS teams paddle in Microsoft's water (e.g. Firefox vs IE) they have the disadvantage of competing against a hugely entrenched market leader

Maybe each party should stick to where they are most profitable, although innovation would suffer as a result.

Re:Market through a mirror (1)

MarkByers (770551) | more than 8 years ago | (#14764054)

Open source software isn't typically about profit. It's often about freedom, and about getting stuff done rather than sitting around waiting for $VENDOR to get off its arse.

OK, that's a bit of a generalisation. Not all open source projects are about freedom... (for example, I'll bet that's not Microsoft's goal).

Not only innovation. (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 8 years ago | (#14764121)

Everything would suffer. If everyone sticks to what they're best at sooner or later we have (pseudo-)monopolies controlling every sub-market - as evidenced by MSIE it's not a good idea to let anyone completely own a market. Without competition the only thing that would have a blast of a time would be the corporate profits and the massive asshattery every vendor would practice - because it's not as if anyone could ever do anything aginst their bad practices.

C'mon. Seriously? (1, Funny)

big_groo (237634) | more than 8 years ago | (#14761982)

FTA:

Microsoft views open source through the lens of "coopetition from commercial and open-source strategies at the same time," Hilf said.

This sort of blatant disregard for the English language is simply intolerable.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=coopetiti on [reference.com]

Re:C'mon. Seriously? (1)

dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv (951946) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762103)

yes, its a new word, get over it.

english is reinvented all the time, hundreds of new words are added each year, maybe this will be one of them if it ever gains popularity.

so, stfu grammer nazi, you are stifling the progress of the english language!

Re:C'mon. Seriously? (2, Interesting)

dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv (951946) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762123)

there are 99,700 google results for the word coopetition, looks like it is becoming quite a popular new word.

Re:C'mon. Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14762151)

or illiteracy is becoming more acceptable.

Given the number of website in the word vs number of results I'd say that even that many results isn't enough to consider it a legitimate part of the english language.

Re:C'mon. Seriously? (1)

dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv (951946) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762390)

so how many people do have to use a word before it becomes accepted as part of the language?

Re:C'mon. Seriously? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14763200)

42

C'mon, somebody was going to say it.

Re:C'mon. Seriously? (1)

Uber Banker (655221) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762161)

So what does it mean? I genuinely don't know.

Re:The meaning (1)

symbolic (11752) | more than 8 years ago | (#14763488)


It describes Microsoft's new strategy:

Cooperate, Compete, Coopt.

(Embrace & Extend apparently wasn't working very well)

Re:C'mon. Seriously? (2, Funny)

orgelspieler (865795) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762611)

There are 250,000 hits for "April 31." That doesn't make it real. I agree with your sentiment; new words are created all the time. I don't believe, though, that thousands of Google hits constitutes evidence that a word or usage is commonly accepted among educated people. Frankly, I think "cooptition" is a stupid word, and I will not us it. Instead I will call the concept "competeration." Although it looks like somebody already came up with that [druid.dk] (pdf, page 59 of 70). :-( (R)

Also, there are 126,000 hits for "omgwtfbbq," but I'm not going to start using that either. ;-p

Re:C'mon. Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14762160)

shit at least spell 'grammar' correctly.

Re:C'mon. Seriously? (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762147)

This sort of blatant disregard for the English language is simply intolerable.

I'm as much of a grammar nazi as anyone, but it actually bothers me less when a new word is invented, versus butchering the existing language and calling that evolution of the language, which is actually simple laziness and ignorance.

Re:C'mon. Seriously? (1)

tolendante (865207) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762366)

Really? You are opposed to a living language? If it wasn't for the evolution of meaning and usage throughout a language's history, we would have a much less vibrant and effective language. If it means that something like "irony" loses its specific meaning and becomes a catch-all term for odd interactions of expectation and reality, it is a small (though annoying) price to pay. However, I'll agree with you that the coining of words and phrases in area-specific jargon is much less jarring for this linguist than the period of adjustment to new usage of words with perfectly good, commonly understood meanings.

Re:C'mon. Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14762391)

Yes, they had never heard of "cooperation" and thought that they "innovated" a technique new to the human experience, and "innovated" another word for it.

they used.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14763482)

..."linguineistic stratergery" to come up with that

Please define (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14762038)

I figured out "leverage" long ago, and even Californian references to "market space" instead of just "market" no longer make me wince. But WTF is a "challenge over perception" ? Is it a "challenge to change people's perception" ? Is it a challenge to you orginating from someone's perception of you ?

I hate this San Francisco style techno babble. It involved misusing common words to make the ordinary seem new, to replace a concrete plan such as "people will pay me money through a web site and I will ship them pet food through UPS" with a vague haze of excitement and emotion.

I believe we need to put pressure on these people to use plainer language. We should write letters, boycott, protest, and of course make fun of them on the internet. We can call our movement the "Heterosexual English Please" movement.

Re:Please define (1)

NorbrookC (674063) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762460)

I hate this San Francisco style techno babble. It involved misusing common words to make the ordinary seem new,

But then you wouldn't be a proactive, forward-thinking outside-of-the-box market leader! You wouldn't be able to make up new words like "coopetition"!

On a more serious note, it's not really San Francisco techno-babble. It's another attempt by a business executive to sound like they have a novel idea. Many businesses have realized over the years that there are times and areas they where they have to cooperate, as well as competing. Up until this point, none of them felt called upon to come up with a brand new word for it. Apparently the case here is that MS has, after more than a decade, realized that it isn't going to be able to totally dominate every single aspect of the IT world. That Linux, BSD, Solaris, AIX, and other OSs are not going away. They're finally starting to understand - not fully, and not without a lot of kicking and screaming - that they're going to have to work and play well with the other OSs, because people are demanding it.

Re:Please define (1)

peterfa (941523) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762879)

I'm just bitterly pissed that "coopetition" might just make it into common English, and I'll have to hear 'doze lusers use the word. I can just feel it now when the first luser comes up to me and actually uses the word like it was proper.

talk about flipping a metaphor! (5, Funny)

Infoport (935541) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762049)

I've heard that David and Goliath metaphor before... ...except that usually Micro$oft is the Goliath.

I can't belive that they DARE to try to use David vs Goliath as a metaphor in THEIR FAVOR!
Poor little beaten-down monopoly....

Re:talk about flipping a metaphor! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14762640)

Remember that they were David back when IBM was Goliath.

It's a stupid metaphor anyway.

Re:talk about flipping a metaphor! (2, Insightful)

gavri (663286) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762831)

I actually thought Bill Hilf was suggesting that the popular perception was that Open Source is David (The Good Guys) and Microsoft is Goliath (The Bad Guys) and their challenge is to change this perception.
Now I'm not sure.

David vs. Goliath? (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 8 years ago | (#14764156)

David vs. Goliath... Wasn't that this court case where this little homicidal maniac was sued for attacking this giant with a sniper slingshot, causing massive cranial trauma? However Microsoft tries to apply it here, they apparently already have their legal team on the case. They're planning something... Does the FOSS community have any armed midgets with a short temper?

PR (5, Informative)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762080)

Ever wonder why they have a problem with their public perception?

"On the desktop, we have a strategic win today (monopoly). We must keep the desktop." - Presentation, Microsoft Executive Staff Retreat, May 10, 1990

"We are engaged in a FUD campaign to let the press know about some of the bugs. We'll provide info a few bugs at a time to stretch it out." - Brad Silverberg, July 22, 1991

"Objectives: FUD DR DOS with every editorial contact made." - MS-DOS 6 PR Plan, November 1992

"look what znix is doing! cut those fuckers off." - Brad Silverberg, May 19, 1992

"Five minutes after any agreement is signed with Microsoft, they'll be thinking of how to violate the agreement. They're predators. They crush their competition. They crush new ideas. They stifle innovation. That's what they do." - Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, Quoted by Matthew Szulik at a U.S. Senate Hearing, Dec 12, 2001

Could be their corporate conduct [msversus.org].

Re:PR (1)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762137)

You know, at some point you have to get over DR-DOS. It was just another sucky DOS anyways, they sued MS and got their money, nobody cares anymore. It's just pathetic to be wollowing in stuff that happened in 1992.

Re:PR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14762685)

This isn't the same as claiming all Prostestant or Catholics are bad because of something that happened in the 1600s. The SAME PEOPLE who set out to destroy their competition illegally in the early 1990s are still in charge of the company today.

Simple common sense says: if they did it two decades ago, and hid the fact they did it at the time, and made billions of dollars from it, and were discovered only by rigorous legal action and investigation and mistakes they made in recording certain communications, then they are probably still doing it today, stealing billions, hiding it better and benefiting from a more pro-corporation legal system.

The strange thing is not the people who still remember the crimes that were discovered in 1992. The strange thing is that some people know of them, and were victims of them -- after all, we all paid those higher prices and used a product vastly inferior to DRDOS from 1992 to 1996 when win95 came out (DRDOS is probably better than win95 until the second edition or even Windows 2000, to tell the truth), as did the parent poster. But like the slaves who fought for the South, they come out of the woodwork to defend the people who rob them.

It all seems clear (1)

dk_says_hey (797871) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762081)

That is a challenge over perception [that] Microsoft open-source story lends itself to a great metaphor of David and Goliath

I think I speak for all of us when i nod my head and laugh

Is this a case of david defeating the goliath (4, Insightful)

ravee (201020) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762085)

Ultimately, Microsoft is coming round to the fact that it cannot write away the open source movement. There is a very popular saying : If a group of weak sticks are bound together, the combined strength can be even more than a single stout stick.

GNU/Linux and Open Source softwares are like the multiple weak sticks which have come together to become very strong. And microsoft is realising that it is not going to be a cake walk any longer.

The end users are the one who are going to benefit from the whole thing.

Re:Is this a case of david defeating the goliath (3, Interesting)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762255)

Actually they realized it years ago. From a quarterly report filed with the SEC by Microsoft [msversus.org] on January 31, 2003 (emphasis mine):

Item 2. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations...

Challenges to the Company's Business Model. Since its inception, the Company's business model has been based upon customers agreeing to pay a fee to license software developed and distributed by Microsoft. Under this commercial software development ("CSD") model, software developers bear the costs of converting original ideas into software products through investments in research and development, offsetting these costs with the revenues received from the distribution of their products. The Company believes that the CSD model has had substantial benefits for users of software, allowing them to rely on the expertise of the Company and other software developers that have powerful incentives to develop innovative software that is useful, reliable and compatible with other software and hardware. In recent years, there has been a growing challenge to the CSD model, often referred to as the Open Source movement... The popularization of the Open Source movement continues to pose a significant challenge to the Company's business model, including recent efforts by proponents of the Open Source model to convince governments worldwide to mandate the use of Open Source software in their purchase and deployment of software products. To the extent the Open Source model gains increasing market acceptance, sales of the Company's products may decline, the Company may have to reduce the prices it charges for its products, and revenues and operating margins may consequently decline.

Re:Is this a case of david defeating the goliath (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14762440)

So....

Essentially, Free Software is Fascism?

Personally, I see it more as a hydra: there are few things that free software can't either be compatible with, or do better as an open standard.

Re:Is this a case of david defeating the goliath (1)

rmdir -r * (716956) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762808)

Ultimately, Microsoft is coming round to the fact that it cannot write away the open source movement. There is a very popular saying : If a group of weak sticks are bound together, the combined strength can be even more than a single stout stick.

Did you just call the F/OSS software movements Fascist?

I knew I shouldn't have woken up this morning...

Re:Is this a case of david defeating the goliath (1)

daverabbitz (468967) | more than 8 years ago | (#14763640)

QUOTE
        Ultimately, Microsoft is coming round to the fact that it cannot write away the open source movement. There is a very popular saying : If a group of weak sticks are bound together, the combined strength can be even more than a single stout stick.

Did you just call the F/OSS software movements Fascist?

I knew I shouldn't have woken up this morning... /QUOTE

No, I think he just called the open source movement a faggot (bundle of stickS).

This guy is big! (2, Funny)

Viraptor (898832) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762104)

"Making money matters. More importantly, making money sustainably matters. Being a successful commercial software company is very hard ... staying successful is even harder," Hilf said. "Developing coopetition strategies is a great way for growth in this environment and we're seeing that today."

He must be a director / big fish. He tells something, everybody knows and still gets public.

Microsoft has used opensource code before... (3, Interesting)

fak3r (917687) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762186)

The BSD Licence allows for code to be used for proprietary software w/o the need to redistribute ala GPL, one of the reasons BSD is seen as more 'corporate friendly'. Plenty of history here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Micro soft_Windows [wikipedia.org] and if you're in Windows you can see traces of BSD throughout. One example, drop to a CMD line in Win32 and...

c:\> strings.exe c:\WINDOWS\system32\ftp.exe | grep Copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.

Re:Microsoft has used opensource code before... (1)

whiskey tango foxtro (912225) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762252)

...if you're in Windows you can see traces of BSD throughout.

This is actually A Good Thing. OSI never got traction because there was no reference implementation of their network stack, only an ambiguous specification.

If Microsoft had had to write their own TCP/IP stack from scratch, we'd still be trying to work out the interoperability problems, and the Internet would be far smaller / less pervasive as a result.

Re:Microsoft has used opensource code before... (1)

ettlz (639203) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762439)

If Microsoft had had to write their own TCP/IP stack from scratch, we'd still be trying to work out the interoperability problems, and the Internet would be far smaller / less pervasive as a result.

So... all those worms would have to find another means to propagate?

IBM? (3, Insightful)

CSHARP123 (904951) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762210)

Microsoft views open source through the lens of "coopetition from commercial and open-source strategies at the same time," Hilf said.
MS had always competed with IBM. IBM is seen has very good to Open source. IBM still makes profit benefiting from open source. MS may be thinking along the same lines and I think they are not able to come up with a viable business plan of how to make use of open source movement that do not hurt their bottomline of MS OS and MS Office.

Re:IBM? (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 8 years ago | (#14763371)

IBM hasn't repeatedly backstabbed us and attempted to put competitors out of business...not in the last couple of decades. In a couple of decades, I might trust a reformed MicroSoft. But they've got to actually reform before the clock starts ticking. Making pious mouth movements doesn't qualify.

Nonsense Grammar (1, Offtopic)

Glasswire (302197) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762322)

I cannot understand what he means by 'That is a challenge over perception.' Grammatically, this makes no sense at all. I assume he meant to say something like "This perception is our (or their) challenge." Or "We are challenged by this perception". But it's gobbleygook now.

I guess you can spell a quote correctly, but editing for grammar would hinder our perception that he's an idiot.

Re:Nonsense Grammar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14762415)

Is there a point to this other than to be a trolling, grammar nazi?

Re:Nonsense Grammar (1)

aurelian (551052) | more than 8 years ago | (#14763819)

Nice to see you didn't have the guts to make your stupid remark without posting AC. He made a perfectly valid and point, relevant to the discussion: what the heck does 'challenge over perception' mean?

ms is already open (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14762356)

did anyone happen to notice the entire .net framework is easily readable?  reflector anyone?  what wasn't leads right down to win32 and most of that was already leaked a few years ago.  jeez guys its just code no magic here we've all seen it all.  besides they have done more complete api's, sdk's and documentation than anyone else can manage.

they don't go out of there way to make it hard to develop on there platforms or they'd just be another mac and you wouldn't even care to flame them on there software pratices.  fear is a powerful force.

Re:ms is already open (1)

coastin (780654) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762662)

fear is a powerful force.

That is apparent by the FUD campaigns and SCO legal action. The bigger the beast the more dangerous their fearful actions become.

Re:ms is already open (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14762664)

Okey dokey then. Where are the specs for NTFS so that I (as a Microsoft customer) can use another OS to mount a Windows drive and access MY data?

Perhaps you should explain your definition of 'open' and we will gladly point out where that differs from both the dictionary definition and common usage of the word.

Re:ms is already open (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14762712)

no its not an open system no doubt, not what i was saying.
the article was about there changing attitude. i was saying its already changed your just not close enough to the technology to understand that.
then i was saying does it really matter? code is code is code. then i went on to mention that people do amazing stuff with a well documented system despite being open source. sometimes not knowing is even better.

but you can mount an ntfs drive i've done it for years so don't cry to much.

Re:ms is already open (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14762780)

but you can mount an ntfs drive i've done it for years so don't cry to much.
You can mount NTFS read-only, there is (still) no stable write support and that has cost me precious time for 1/2 a decade.

I think I understand your point a little more clearly now. I'm not sure I agree but I appreciate your perspective. Thanks.

Re:ms is already open (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14762793)

okay thats fine but its a product of them trying to solve a problem
not trying to keep you out of your precious files. if you really cared
you wouldn't even be using ntfs, you would use some ingenius protocol like
smb and call it a day or not even bother.

btw you didn't say write you said mount ;)

Re:ms is already open (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14762841)

I think you are missing the point. Microsoft is a lock-in, lock-out system and company. They can't share or be open about anything without having some strings attached. Heck, they don't even want you to have a dual boot. You have to install MS first then the other OS. And they don't even let you share your authored documents with anyone of your choice (ie only other paying members of the MS club).

Re:ms is already open (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 8 years ago | (#14763424)

To be fair, most Linux distributions I install fail to recognize the Linux distributions in other partitions. I have to go back and hand edit Grub's menu.lst. And I think that Grub can boot MSWind (I haven't tried since Debian Potato, so I'm not sure). That being the case, complaining that MSWind doesn't make the Linux partitions bootable without extra work is a bit unfair. And that they don't give users much control over partition formatting and allocation is likely more a comment on how computer literate they expect their users to be.

That said, I wouldn't trust MS as far as I could throw them...the whole company! They've repeatedly proven themselves untrustworthy and unethical. But criticize them for their real sins.

Re:ms is already open (1)

Nevyn (5505) | more than 8 years ago | (#14763553)

To be fair, most Linux distributions I install fail to recognize themself in other partitions.

Re:ms is already open (1)

ssokolow (953733) | more than 8 years ago | (#14763557)

Linux can read NTFS, it's writing that's the problem. Linux's NTFS write support is limited by several factors, the most major of them being the fact that it can only edit existing files and only without resizing them. As for booting, GRUB supports standard chain loading so it can start another OS's bootloader (eg ntldr or the bootloaders used by the BSDs), but for reasons unknown, the Windows installer wipes the master boot record and then does nothing to it, so if you want to dual-boot and you upgrade Windows (or install it second), make sure you have a Linux recovery disk handy to restore GRUB.

Re:ms is already open (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14762883)

Microsoft haven't documented their bastardization of SMB either. Full marks to SAMBA but that wouldn't solve my problems because my users are field-based (literally). Removable storage is not suitable so what we do now is insist that every Windows drive has an ext2 partition.
btw you didn't say write you said mount ;)

If would be a good thing from a security perspective if more NTFS drives were mounted read-only ;-)

MS in Open source ;-) (2, Insightful)

coastin (780654) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762623)

There's also the problem of the "observer effect," which is potentially changing an environment being part of it. "This is the important part for Microsoft," he said. "We have an impact from what people call the ripple effect ... What would actually happen if we were in that environment?"

You'd really mess it up comes to mind!

One of the things MS fails to see is that the Open Source movement has lit a fire under the whole computing industry and opened doors for many who have great ideas. The part I like best about the open source movement is the rush of new talent on the scene that would otherwise be stuck in a very Orwellian state if it had not been set free.

MS seems to be facing quite a dilemma where they have to be very careful to not make too much sense when addressing open source, much like a politician who has to gain the confidence of those he will later betray for money over principles. This may explain why a smart, educated man would sound so illiterate and senseless while addressing the open source supporters in the room. Surely, ramblings like we see in TFA must be absent when he reports back to HQ. Otherwise, I would be compelled to warn all MS employees not to drink the water at the office.

big companies love open source (3, Insightful)

DeveloperAdvantage (923539) | more than 8 years ago | (#14762703)

Of course Microsoft will keep an eye on open source. I think open source is of huge benefit to large commercial software companies. Here's why.

The open source movement provides a huge ecosystem of software projects which a large company like Microsoft can monitor. When a large company sees a successful open source project, they know there is value to what the project is doing. A level of demand is thus established. Then, they can do some research and try determine whether or not there is a successful business model which can be built around the project, i.e., whether or not the project can be made to generate cash. If it can, then they can decide an appropriate strategy to profit from it, either through purchasing the company or its talent, or simply duplicating the company's work.

There are few other industries where so many talented people are willing to work for free.

misread title (1)

spir0 (319821) | more than 8 years ago | (#14763167)

maybe it's too early in the morning, but at first glance, I'm convinced that it was the Open Source Bitterness Conference.

Challenge "over" perception probably "of our" (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 8 years ago | (#14763926)

I think he probably said

The challenge 'of our' perception
and they misheard it as
The challenge 'over' perception.

Suggested improvements to Microsoft's F/LOS stance (1)

dreamsinter (451159) | more than 8 years ago | (#14764087)

I've tried to find Hilf's blog, but he doesn't appear to have one. These are some suggestions I've made to Microsoft's previous Shared (Scared?) Source Czar, Jason Matusow:

Now that there has been an attempt to halt license bloat, begin by releasing the MS WinCE under the unlimited MS Community License, replacing the four existing Shared Source Licenses with one, offering businesses a one-off lump sum license buy-out or an annual relicensing deal a la AT&T and Unix;

Microsoft wants the developing nations' markets but doesn't want to dirty its hands in developing them, while on the other hand, those markets are full of "pirated" Microsoft software. Ingredients for a full-on Cargo Cult! The cure? Simple. Microsoft to license the MS Windows 9x source tree to the various Developing World universities under the unlimited MS Community License, informing every University of the other recipients, and suggesting that they collaborate;

And likewise, licensing the older Windows NT source trees to Developing World Universities under the unlimited MS Community License.

Unlike many other Free/Libre Open Source Software supporters, I don't see the implosion/collapse of Microsoft as being necessarily a good thing, if it goes the way of the international economy in the 1920s. I'd much rather have it happen gracefully. That way fewer people get hurt, and the fewer the number, the happier I am.

I mean, Microsoft could do us all a favour by keeping an eye out , not by poking an eye out !

Wesley Parish

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...