The Microsoft attitude towards the competition du jour has taken a turn towards the distinctly tolerant. Speaking at the Microsoft IT Forum in Copenhagen, Bradley Tipp, the software company's UK national systems engineer, said: "We have nothing against open source, from Microsoft's point of view, it's not a religious thing, it's not them versus us… there are a lot of things we have learnt and there are a lot of things we should learn from open source."
It seems that Microsoft may actually be quite keen on taking a leaf out of the open-source book, with an eye on putting its source code in the public domain. What some execs would like to see is a smart-card scheme -- an extension of the existing practice where selected trusted users can access source code in a secure environment.
But Microsoft remains adamant that commercial reasons prevent it from simply putting the source code -- its "crown jewels" -- in the public domain.
That magpie attitude, according to Microsoft, is mutual. Red Hat's decision to end support for its free software and the Novell-SuSE link-up have put the last nail in the coffin of the free-software model, the Redmond behemoth believes -- even going so far as to speculate that the move from free to paid-for open-source software is a validation of Microsoft's way of doing business and the only way the open-source movement can survive.
Despite the rivalry, Microsoft is keen to talk up its love for the competition, One Microsoft employee even went so far as to say Linux having a 50 percent market share would be good for Microsoft. "At least if Linux takes off, their viruses will propagate and we won’t be seen as the bad guys any more," he said. Tipp equally sees advantages to Linux taking off. "We think Linux is great," he said, adding that competition from the penguin and associates keeps the Microsoft on its toes.
Open-source users, however, aren't quite so overflowing with praise, he said. "We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better." Tipp argued that it is more a case of sheer frustration with licensing and Microsoft’s poor relationship with its customers over the last few years -- or simply the perceived cost benefits of open source -- driving users to migrate.
And it's that "misperception" that Microsoft is most keen to address, restating its aim to get more information on how free software fits into the total cost of ownership into the hands of its consumers.
But when it comes down to how seriously the Gates camp really takes its open-source rivals, the message is now they've started to sit up and take notice: "Do we lie awake at night and worry? You know Microsoft, it's the paranoid company. If someone buys just one copy of something else, we worry," Tipp said.
Talkback
[quote]
But when it comes down to how seriously the Gates camp really takes its open-source rivals, the message is now they've started to sit up and take notice: "Do we lie awake at night and worry? You know Microsoft, it's the paranoid company. If someone buys just one copy of something else, we worry," Tipp said.
[end of quote]
Mr. Paranoid misses the point! Linux users don't buy!
What is this talk about "public domain" and "opensource" software in a same sentence. If someone is afraid of putting its software in to a "public domain" what does it have do with open-source? Opensource is a software-development model - software that is released under different licences. "Public domain" is not a development model. It is software that is released free from any restricting licenses - you can do with it whatever you want - no ownership or licence fees asked. Many "closed source"-software makers would happily see all opensource-software as a public domain, because then they could "take best from the both worlds" (even those they cannot buy), use them in their own "closed" products and keep having their "market leads". Most opensource software HAS restrictive licences - so they are NOT "public domain".
Somebody tell Bradley Tipp that I convert all windows servers to Linux, each and every job that I go to.
Not because it is free, not because it is what I use. Because it makes it easier (read: better!) for the client.
Fileservers/Mailserver don't crash anymore. Add a little open-source software and viruses don't get into the networks anymore.
Uptimes increase from days to months/years. And, regardless of what Ballmer would like to believe as the governor of fantasyland, bugs are fixed immediately with open-source, not when it is embarrassing for the company's bottom line.
Microsoft certainly can learn from Open Source, but I don't think things will be very reciprocal. For one, the O/S world is often more cutting edge (just browse SourceForge at sourceforge.net), but the non-technical user won't see it this way (unfortunately).
As for Redhat's choice - well, they never really did support users who didn't pay for technical service. Besides, the new Fedora distribution falls into Redhat's place, so there is really nothing to worry about.
Suse has always been more commercial, so I cannot see how their acquistion by Novell will change anything.
(Please note that neither Suse nor Redhat may actually stop you from duplicating the software, which is GPL (mostly), but they have the right to decide when to give you technical support)
The Microsoft Employee's quip on virusses shows quite worryingly what Microsoft's policies on safety are - since he's obviously never utilised Linux, he's unaware of the security measures implemented in most Linux Distributions that make virusses pretty useless (they can only really wreak havoc in one user's directory) - it's worrying, since Microsoft thinks that there is no need to do better and just assumes that everything other piece of software is as vulnerable as its own. It's not - the Internet would have been history had it not been for Solaris, FreeBSD and Linux, all of which are Unix-like, and all of which are a lot safer than Windows with regards to virusses.
No, Open Source is just starting to gain momentum, and Microsoft should really stop flattering itself over its business model.
It's a shame that again, non-technical users will trust Microsoft, no matter how distorted their claims.
Oh well.
"We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better."
Of course, 50% of the world uses Apache instead of IIS on mission critical servers just because it's free. Who has Microsoft been talking to?!
And all those silly uptime statistics - we really should switch to IIS, then I could measure uptime in hours instead of months... but really, nobody uses opensource because it's better.
Gee, Mr. Tipp. I use open source software most often because:
1. It's simply better that the commercial counterparts
2. I don't normally need technical support with open source software
3. I don't have to call India to get technical support.
[Quote] "We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better."
Unfortunately, no one from Microsoft talked to me... I use Linux all the time, because it's better. I was using XP Pro for a while, but it's horrid. I would have fatal errors and the Blue Screen of Death at least 3 times a day, when everything thing should have been working fine. Latest drivers for everything, and it was completely up-to-date. So I decided to switch to linux, and just have a Win2k partition for the Windoze-only programs that I needed. Linux is working perfectly, it's completely stable. I haven't had a serious error yet. Meanwhile, my Windoze install STILL isn't working properly! I'm now running Linux exclusively, and found alternative applications to the windoze-only programs.
I use Open Source software because it is better than competing Microsoft products.
I use Linux on my desktop computer and NetBSD for my servers because they are better and more stable operating systems.
I use Gnome as my desktop because it is quick and snappy, and doesn't try to impose a lot of restrictions on me like Windows XP.
I use OpenOffice because it is well designed, not cluttered, and generally 'feels' better than Office XP.
I use Mozilla because it has better support for standards, and renders pages closer to the way that they should be, unlike Internet Explorer.
I use Irfanview for photo acquisition and editting, because it's superiour in almost every way to anything that microsoft has put out for that purpose.
Even a lot of the PC based games that I choose to play run on an Open Source / Free operating system, and several are also Open Source / Free themselves!
I use open Source Software because it's better and more flexible than Microsofts offerings.
I can set up a mail server with POP, IMAP, SMTP, Spam checking, Anti-Virus, with and Web Interface and LDAP integration in a few hours for only the cost of my time.
Once again, Microsoft just doesn't get it. If they would work on operating with Linux instead of fighting against it, I would probably be rebuilding fewer of my PC servers with Linux.
I do save allot more money as I trim put the MS servers though, so I guess getting rid of them os a good thing.
I tend to seperate the ideas of "Free Software" and "Open Source Software" (OSS). OSS is more about having the freedom to share code to make better software. Having the software free is just a way to get more people involved in the development. RedHat and other end user Linux software is based on the works of the community. RedHat just makes it easier for end users to use Linux and they deserve to be paid for their services. So I don't really see what the big deal is about what Microsoft is saying...how is this an end of an era?
In response to the claim that nobody says they're
using open source software because it's better:
Mozilla Firebird is objectively better than IE.
It has, among other things: tabbed browsing,
popup blocking, and correct handling of transparent
PNGs. It's nice to see IE will have tabbed browsing
in the near future, but MS is playing catch-up here.
Of course there are good reasons why "Microsoft remains adamant ... putting the source code -- its 'crown jewels' -- in the public domain" would be of concern.
The commercial reasons Microsoft proposes are, however, a red herring, to divert attention away from security related concerns.
As we all know, Microsoft relies heavily on security by obscurity - the assumption that if you can't see the holes you won't know they are there. Given the huge holes recently found in Microsoft's code without access to source code I don't imagine Microsoft would be too keen to expose it's source code to the public. If you think Microsoft's products are insecure now, wait until those bastards that write viruses, worms and other hacks get their hands on the source code.
"What is this talk about 'public domain' and 'opensource' software in a same sentence. If someone is afraid of putting its software in to a 'public domain' what does it have do with open-source? "
Good question. When it comes to Microsoft, the press and the average user its the blind leading the blind leading the blind. The average user nor the average journalist don't bother to draw the fine distinctions between Microsoft and anything that is not-Microsoft. This makes it easier for MS PR people and sales reps to make totally ludicrous statements and get away with it. Of course it is also true that these PR people rarely put themselves in a situations where they are subject to follow-up questions.
> One Microsoft employee even went so far as to say
> Linux having a 50 percent market share would be good
> for Microsoft. "At least if Linux takes off, their viruses
> will propagate and we won’t be seen as the bad guys
> any more," he said.
100% total, unadulterated, Taurine Excrement. Check Netcraft's webserver survey for No at...
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html
Developer Percent
Apache 67.41
Microsoft 21.02
SunONE 3.39
Zeus 1.65
Apache has over 3 times the marketshare of MS, yet MS web servers (IIS, etc) have much more problems.
"We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better."
How many open source users did they talk to, to arrive at this specious assertion? Or are they being disingenuous... perhaps they couldn't find a "single" user, merely millions of users that think open source is better?
For the record, I use open source because is is better...
more secure, faster, more functional, more robust and cheaper. And I am happy to talk to Microsoft anytime.
So if Microsoft ever makes this claim again, it's because they simply don't talk to users. But that would hardly be a surprise.
Any chance I could get Tipp's number?
We ditched Microsoft at our business, and run Linux on the desktop, simply because it's a better choice.
I'd like to talk to him about it.
Scott
I use open source software because it's much better.
I switched back in the days of Win98 when Win98 could run for more than a couple of hours without crashing. Linux' GUI wasn't as good, but I got more work done because I wasn't reboot.
I keep an eye out for the latest Windows product, but I'm not moving back, because Microsoft doesn't have anything to offer. Over the years my Gnome desktop has surpassed Windows in usability and stability (my wife use's XP, but less and less, so I"ve got something to compare too), my web browser and email client have improved beyond IE and Outlook, my office software (OpenOffice.org) is better than MS Office, the list goes on and on.
About the only thing that Windows has that I don't is virus protection software. But my friends appreciate the calls I give them when they become infected and send my yet another harmless virus.
It sounds like Microsoft's staff are a little too insulated from the reality. People use Linux because it's better and it doesn't take that long to realize why. Every Microsoft emplyee could learn a lot by having to run Linux on their computer for two weeks without being able to use their own software. Sure, they'll find some short comings in Linux, but they'll also come to the realization that Windows has a long way to go.
(A case in point. Why is it that you still can't resize dialog windows in WIndows. This might seem like a no brainer, but it's still a major usability issue in Windows.)
Microsoft's Tipp said: "We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better."
I imagine that's true, to the literal reading. You probably haven't talked to any of us who'd tell you open source is better, and why. And why haven't you? There's lots of us out there. We're not that hard to find. And WE are the ones you could learn the most from. You might not like what you learn, but you'd learn.
No users mentioned that Open Source was better at anything, while Apache is disembowling Microsoft's garbage web server in the market place?!
According to the Microsoft theory, there should be more security holes in Apache then in IIS, since Apache has a much larger market share -- and is growing. That is not really an accurate picture of the world...
An "article" about Microsoft positive opinions on Open Source that doesn't mention their previous FUD (cancer, etc, etc) and fail to do trivial thinking about the arguments is pathetic.
Big advertising accounts tend to not get such stuff mentioned, I guess....
"We haven't talked to a single user who has said they're using [open source] because it's better."
Have they talked to users of Open Source? Perhaps they only considered Windows users as "users".
I started with linux as a dual boot on my (paid for) Windows machine. So why did I find that I never booted into the Windows partition - was it because linux was cheaper? I will never go back to using an operating system that insults my intelligence at every turn.
learn, but give to it something instead.
Well, I use Open Source 'cos it's better.
Free BSD underpins OS-X.
I use OpenOffice, which even on X11 is so much more stable than Word on any Windows platform I've used. OpenOffice would be even better if it was LESS like MS Office, even so the user interface is better.
Gimp is really very good.
I can't wait for the OS-X native versions.
I even use Fire (An Open Source chat program) to chat via the MSN Messenger protocol, it's way more reliable than Messenger itself.
There will always be commercial software but Open Source is the future.
I prefer it for one reason. The developers tend to concentrate on making it work, rather than making it pretty, which is the one thing Microsoft should really learn.
Why does Microsoft always claim that "everyone" should use their products beause they are best. Look at commercials for products, all claim they are best. I don't see BMW claiming you should only drive their car because it is "best". What best for one person or application might not be best for another. The question should instead be, what is best for each user, Microsoft, Apple, Linux or otherwise. No product can be all things to all people and it is foolish for Microsoft to continue to argue this.
Open source V Public Domain
The reason Microsoft is trying to confuse Public Domain with Open source is due to its interest in the SCO-IBM Court case in which SCO is tryin to invalidate the GPL and convince the judge that all GPL software should be classed as public domain. All the legal opinion seems to suggest that they have no hope of either... But Microsoft will always try FUD before innovation.
When Microsoft starts talking like this, we'd better be careful. They might have something up their sleeves.