Bill Gates' claim that the open source methodology encourages forking was slated by one UK analyst on Monday.
Gary Barnett, a research director at analyst firm Ovum, wasn't impressed with Microsoft's latest weapon against Linux. "If open source opponents are reduced to using that argument, open source is doing very well," said Barnett.
Microsoft chairman Bill Gates said in an executive email late last week that implementing open source software could be expensive due to the cost of making incompatible applications work together.
"Open source is a methodology for licensing and/or developing software -- that may or may not be interoperable," said Gates. "Additionally, the open source development approach encourages the creation of many permutations of the same type of software application, which could add implementation and testing overhead to interoperability efforts."
But Barnett believes the risk of open source software forking is low as open source licences, such as the General Public License, ensure that companies must contribute changes back to the open source community.
"It is nonsense to say that open source software is more likely to produce variations," said Barnett. "The fact is that with GPL there is no direct monetary benefit to create forked versions. The same is true for other open source licences as well."
Open source developers are unlikely to create incompatible versions as there is no advantage, said Barnett, adding that an incompatible open source project is less likely to be adopted by users and less likely to be built on.
"What do you gain from developing incompatible versions?" said Barnett. "It's pretty silly of Bill Gates to assume that open source developers are so stupid -- it's absolute nonsense."
Interoperability appears to be Microsoft's latest weapon against Linux. Two weeks ago Nick McGrath, head of platform strategy at Microsoft, claimed that creating a standard version of Linux would be a "big challenge" and that there is better interoperability within Windows than any other platform.
Linux vendors Mandrakesoft and Red Hat rejected these claims. Gael Duval, co-founder of Mandrakesoft, said that although interoperability tends to be higher within a closed, proprietary system such as Windows, Linux is interoperable with other systems, which is an advantage for companies that have a mixed infrastructure.
Click here for an in-depth look at the issues surrounding forking.
Talkback
I wish Gates would speak plain English.
Mabon Dane
interoperability! Is Bill's brain interoperable with the Real World? Open Source has given interoperability a much needed push. It ain't all right but Open Source is a good environment where interoperability can evolve. If however Bill Gates thinks this is not the case I would suggest that he provide concrete examples to support his arguements. This would help improve interoperability, something he aspires to champion. Or is MicroSofts simple answer to interoperability Microsoft?
Well done Ingrid, discoverer of the apostrophe! Back to the linux advocacy then.
ZDNet UK, the Fox 5 of the Internet...
Yea, like there are never version compatibility issues with Windows. The BIG problem with Open Source i s that it is cheap, relatively secure, and stable---oops-- I guess we won't hear that from Bill any time soon.
Maybe he can't snow the analysts, but you bet the pimply-faced IT geeks will parrot anything Gates says to hold on to their Windows-unreliability-based job security.
Gate's real problem with Linux/OSS is that it is a developing system, whereas Windows is the same old thing in a new fashion outfit.
One can see the truth of this by having a look at a 1984 Indy workstation, which had all the frills and colours of XP on 32bit Intel.
If Linux/OSS develops past this point on Wintel hardware, who will look at Gate's product as being "leading edge" any more, and what platform will Gates be able to base his "new innovations" on.
One must remember it was interoperability that spelt the death of the old IBM monopoly, another famous old box in new clothes strategist.
Like Gate's products, their own systems couldn't effectively interoperate without third party help, and lack of interoperation with smaller competing systems gave rise to what was then termed "Open Systems".
It was a *nix that took over the market because it showed users it could interoperate with anything, including all of IBM's products.
Gates claim is true that microsoft is interoperable, that is with spyware and viruses
Making the NTFS and MS-SMB specifications royalty-free and open would be a great step towards interoperability. Come on Bill, make a contribution to interoperability!
Interoperability? Worry about operability first Mr. World's Greediest man
it is not nonsence there is allready interoperability problems within most of the different flavors of linux
Interoperability problems in Linux?
Well, I'm afraid that Mr. Anonymous from Canada has a knowledge of Linux which is no better than his spelling ability. Personally I have never had interoperability problems between Linux, BSD, or any UNIX. All services that I use work fine - databases, NFS, backup systems, ssh, X and so on. So Mr. IT Tech, where are your examples of interoperability problems? I'd certainly like to hear of them.
Total cost of ownership extends beyond the free download of a server or desktop product.
When your company has to pay over $100 a man hour for product support, you quickly surpass the initial cost of Microsoft products.
When your IT person quits and leaves you sitting with a "kluge jobbed" server, there's going to be a long and expensive learning curve for the next person in that seat.
It's your choice. Maybe your company can afford the down time.
Mr MN USA says "When your IT person quits and leaves you sitting with a "kluge jobbed" server"
Do you think Enterprises implementing Open Source and Linux solutions are morons?
First let me say I do enjoy using some Microsoft products.
interoperability! Microsoft's primary interoperability problem is: Microsoft itself cannot and will not live with many other OS vendors, Application and Service Providers, Open Source and Knowledge Groups, etc. Meaning the basic and most fundamental requirements needed for Microsoft itself to be a supporter of interoperability total cannot be found within Microsoft. Microsoft has on occasion by its actions threaten interoperability and Bill Gates current statement in a way supports this fact. I am happy Bill choose to make this thoughts clear to the world. I assume he knows that the world has a plasticity about it that no being can halt. The Microsoft Corporation is Newtonian. Therefore the Microsoft Corporation requires great changes within it's structure to make it's way into the Quantum Realm on offer to those in the 21st Century. Bill may not realized this yet but i am sure some in his ranks do.
So I put it to you Bill, if Microsoft truly supports interoperability Microsoft will embrace the ideas, the differences and the dreams of others e.g. Linux, Open Source, Apple Corp, IBM Corp, etc.
Apple is an example of Gates' comments. Interoperability is better with both Hardware & Software when the vendor has a closed environment.
So why isn't Apple 80% of the market and Microsoft 10%? For the same reason, that Linux will eventually become the dominant environment.
Gates. "Additionally, the open source development approach encourages the creation of many permutations of the same type of software application, which could add implementation and testing overhead to interoperability efforts." 18 versions of .Net servers, maybe Microsoft are following the Unix model with mutiple versions of the operating system !!!