There is also support for open source within Microsoft, although Microsoft executives have flatly denied there is any "dissent" within the company, much less a "civil war", as once suggested by Red Hat's Tiemann. There are product groups within Microsoft that are genuinely enthusiastic about open source and others that are dramatically less so, according to industry observers.
Is it just a matter of time, then, before Microsoft relaxes enough to start porting core software such as Office or Outlook to Linux? There are plenty of reasons why such a move would be in Microsoft's best interests. In pure business terms, withholding support from a growing platform is simply handing competitors an opportunity, says O'Grady. And Microsoft's approach is increasingly out of step with the way technology is evolving. "A single-platform approach I think will become increasingly problematic as competitive, cross-platform alternatives mature and become more viable," Red Monk's O'Grady says.
That said, Microsoft shows no sign of actually making such a radical step, industry observers say — "Not in the near future, anyway," according to O'Grady.
Eric Raymond, a prominent figure in the open source community, says a release of Office for Linux isn't even that desirable, since alternatives such as StarOffice and OpenOffice.org are already available. "The important move would be to document all (Microsoft's) file formats and communications protocols, make the documentation publicly available, and make a binding promise not to sue or harass people who write open source software to interoperate," he says.
Other steps Microsoft could take to show it is genuinely willing to work alongside the open-source world could include better support for Firefox alongside of Internet Explorer, native support within Office for OASIS' OpenDocument standard, relaxing the company's stance on software patents, and a better attitude toward contributing to technical standards, say those in the industry.
Embrace, extend, extinguish
Microsoft hasn't exactly been backed into a corner by open-source competition, and there's another very good reason for the company to get on speaking terms with the open source world. That is, it could help the company compete, and eventually perhaps overcome the open-source adversary. "The best way to learn stuff is to engage with people, and if they wanted to have an intelligent debate they needed to take some of the heat out," says Governor. "That could be positive, in that they're reaching out and trying to convince people of their point of view. But the Microsoft playbook has always been embrace, extend and extinguish."
Those in the open source community have few illusions about Microsoft. Linus Torvalds has said he expects Microsoft's "conversations" to be mostly threats and positioning. And other open source leaders point out that along with all the pleasant conversation, Microsoft is continuing to do all it can to keep open source from getting ahead.
The company supports extending software patents in the EU, and unapologetically defends its right to use software patents as a weapon in the US. In releasing Windows communications protocols to competitors, as required by last year's European Commission antitrust ruling, Microsoft attached licensing conditions that block open source projects like Samba from using the protocols effectively. Microsoft has a track record of attempting to include its patented technology in technical standards.
Kernel maintainer Morton says such activities are "very telling indeed" and hasn't seen any change in Microsoft's real activities. "The strategy for Microsoft is obvious: work to dissipate the ill-will while not actually giving anything away," he says.
Eric Raymond calls software patents an "extremely serious" threat and calls other Microsoft practices, such as withholding communications protocols and injecting patented technology into open standards, "crash landings"; the rest is superficial public relations. "The open source community is not at war with Microsoft by choice, but only because Microsoft's overriding strategic objective is to crush threats to its monopoly, and the open source community is such a threat," Raymond says. "While that is still Microsoft's goal, peaceful coexistence is not really possible."
In the mean time, few believe Microsoft will be able to find a way to co-opt or extinguish open source. "Open source has a bright future. It's not going away," says analyst Governor. "That may be a reason for Microsoft to engage with it, but once you start doing this stuff, it's disruptive, it's not something you can control. There are too many open source threats to Microsoft to imagine there's one easy way they can wipe it out."
Talkback
Interoperability? What a joke.
MS fails to achieve good interoperability of its own systems. They have a revenue stream generated by creating interoperability between different combinations of their own OS and software.
I envisage they'd do little more than to create a generation of useful interoperability - but for one software generation only (5 yrs or less). Once people embrace the easy combo of Windows/Linux softwares MS will again introduce changes that screw it all up, in the aim of forcing further MS system / application upgrades... at a CO$T to the consumer.
any open source players looking to hook up with MS should give netscape a call before hand
Microsoft is stupid. The only true signal of cooperation (and it has been asked for plenty of times by many) is to open up protocols and formats with no strings attached whatsoever. Rather then taking existing, established, formats and protocols and polluting them (or make their own version) with Microsoft copyrights and patents. Kerberos, Microsoft IPX, WMA, HTML, etc, etc. The list is long and plenty.
Open up the protocols and formats. It's what the Open Source community is after. But also Microsoft's own customers including governments. Heck, even some of their own partners have been asking for it.
Afterall, Microsoft claims to be the best innovator of the world and they claim that they are better (cheaper) in almost every aspect that counts.
And let us not forget Microsoft's enormous R&D and PR budget, contributing partner network and its devoted developer communities.
They talk the talk but they don't walk the walk.
Instead they do exactly what their opponents have pointed out all along and is starting to become clear to more people now. If Microsoft is indeed that good then why do they need to strong arm their opponents and their own customers into the corner all of the time? Shouldn't Microsoft be jumping at the chance to proof once and for all who can beat who hands down? Heck, do we here Microsoft's opponents crying about what an unfair match it would be if aspects like R&D budget and number of devoted partners and developers weren't in balance as well. No, as far as Microsoft's opponents are concerned Microsoft can start with all of those huge advantages well in place. But what does Microsoft do? Big mouthing and still strong arming. So who's really the best? Who really can give you better value for money, more bang for the buck, time and time again by offering you choice because they simply know that no matter how many oppurtunities they give you to leave you would have to be completely ignorant to actually do so.
Microsoft should put up or shut up.
You can't trust Microsoft!!! There motivation is money, power and profit! Where as the open source community wants better programs with less flaws and a higher standard of programming that is aviable to all, rich and poor. Microsoft stands to make no Profit from any open source ventures it may enguage in. It will only improve there image, "Thats what their after" as well as seeking out week points in the open source community, which they will then taget with bureaucratic red tape and slap them all with law suits destroying the open source movement. The real suffers are us, the end users. I once used to like Microsoft's products untill I discovered alternatives. Now I think Microsoft's products are poorly constructed with little thought for the end users e.g. take IE (Internet Explorer) and compare it with the likes of Opera 8 and FireFox 1.0. There's no contest IE loses every time! Try them see which one you prefer.
"There motivation is money, power and profit! "
Damn right it is and good luck to them, thats called business, putting your opponents out of business is also extremely good business practice
As for other open source rubbish
The only standard is who sells the most
The best is who sells the most,,
Oh and as for 'free' often just another name for theft
When the Open Source 'community' starts getting psychologists, marketing research and sales people people working for free then It might make get somewhere. The fact is programmers make up a very small part of what is require to make a decent program usable by normal people not computer science students
Jon, I am a "normal person" and I like Linux better than Windows and OpenOffice better than MS Office, and Firefox (or even poor old Netscape!) better than IE.
In reference to my last comment a 'normal person' is someone who uses a computer as tool to do a non-computer related job. Secretary, salesman etc. It is highly unlikely to refer to anyone who reads or posts on these groups
Linux and similar simple do not aim for these users basically as you arent going to find many non-computer geeks who are prepared to sit around in focus groups discussing user interfaces for free.
I heard Microsoft emply over a 100 pyschologists for the develpment their operating systems. Now you may or may not think Bill Gates did a good job but the the idea behind it is very sound.
The point is it takes a lot more than a good coder to make a good program
Yeah. Take Microsoft Office for example. People used to pay good money for concurrent licensing and get free licensing for their laptops and home computers at the same time. Noweday they pay tons more for non-concurrent use for each and every single PC out there. In other words, 10 years ago people would have called a rip-off what they say is a good deal today.
Basicly they still type the same things. Do the same maths. Still use a whole bunch of third-party tools to get work done. They could do that on a piece of paper. They could do it with non-Microsoft software. Or they could do it with Microsoft software. The diff? That really matters? You tell me, but I know which one is costing you the most overall.
Is that a choice? Maybe, some might claim that you have no real choice because you are somewhat brainwashed about it. But then I don't have 100 pyschologists on my pay list.
"You can't trust Microsoft!!! There motivation is money, power and profit!"
Dear Jon
In response to your comments.
The point I was trying to make about Microsoft as quoated above is that they don't care much about the end user, computer geek or not. As long as they are raking in huge profits, thats what a business is about, Profit!
However their not bothered about improving their products to reach their full potential, sure windows has come a long way from the constantly crashing Windows 95 to a more stable Windows XP but it's take such along itme to do so considering the amout of resources they have aviable.
I don't know any one who doesn't get hacked off and fustrated with their system from time to time. Thses are the non-technical users using Micrsoft products, you imply as "normal people" I think you might have meet a few of these "normal people".
The Open souce programs, set to improve user experience. This is the point am getting at. I wouldn't mind too much even if they did charge for their programs provinding that their products were of a high standard and didn't cause the end user a lot of fustration. This is somthing Microsoft clearly doesn't do and in their view if they don't do it no one else should be able to.
The Open source programs have shown people, computer geek or not, that using the computer can be a pleasent and enjoyable experience with little fustration.
I't is in the best intrest for Microsoft to destroy the Open source movement to keep their extremly high profit mirgin. That's what they will aim to do. Aim to take away the enjoyable experience with little fustration away from the end user as they do not want to provide the same or better standards as the open source programs do. I find it hard to belive that Microsoft will ever match the open source programs for performance and quality not because they can't but because they don't want to!! come on a firm as big as Microsoft can't find good programmers. It's the end users that lose out!!!!
Having to reactivation my copy of Windows XP Professional 2002 every time I reinstall it is so ridiculous! To me, reactivating Windows makes no sense whatsoever. Do that is nothing but a giant paine in the neck.
Roberta Gallant
Concord, New Hampshire