The well-publicised antitrust actions in the EU and the US against Microsoft have left a permanent stain on the company's reputation. The result is that nearly every announcement by the company, from a product launch to the hiring of a new executive, is subject to cynical scrutiny — and many would claim justifiable so. After all, this is the company that recently bought off nearly all its major opponents in the EU antitrust trial including its most vociferous adversary the Computer & Communications Industry Association.
Given this background, it is hardly surprising that Microsoft's latest riposte to the ever-growing threat posed by Linux has been taken with a pinch of salt. All previous research sponsored by Microsoft on the relative benefits and costs of Windows versus Linux have suffered a credibility gap precisely because they were funded by Microsoft. Now the company is suggesting a jointly-funded research programme with the Open Source Development Labs in an attempt to create a comparison that can be touted round as truly independent. And who better to be a co-funder? The OSDL is the closest thing the fragmented Linux community has to a parent organisation — its list of employees includes the father of the open source operating system Linus Torvalds.
How exactly this independent research will be carried out is not clear, indeed it is far from certain that the OSDL will actually agree to the plan at all. Statistics are all a question of interpretation and emphasis — given Microsoft's infinite marketing and public relations resource it is quite likely that the company could spin even a report that heavily criticised Windows into a positive endorsement of its operating system.
Yet there may be more to this agreement than first impressions suggest. While outsiders may see this as another battle in the religious war between the de facto champion of proprietary software and the ragged but virtuous massed ranks of the open source community — talks between the generals may have relegated the previous conflict to little more than market posturing. Microsoft has recently begun to take a much more pragmatic approach to open source, realising that fighting the enemy head on, or indeed fighting at all, may actually be counterproductive. Early attempts to dismiss or ride roughshod over the open source competition have proved fruitless. Microsoft has had to accept that Linux and open source software is not going away and it has had to adjust its tactics accordingly. Hence the rash of so-called secret meetings between the company's chief executive Steve Ballmer and open software luminaries such as Red Hat's Matthew Szulik and the OSDL's Steve Cohen.
Microsoft's long term strategy around Linux and open source is evolving. Its current tactics suggest management could well be split between hawks and doves advocating head-on attack and acceptance/assimilation respectively. Whichever side wins out, it is clear that Microsoft is definitely a fan of the old military adage — keep your friends close but your enemies closer.
Talkback
[i]Early attempts to dismiss or ride roughshod over the open source competition have proved fruitless. Microsoft has had to accept that Linux and open source software is not going away and it has had to adjust its tactics accordingly.[/i]
Poison is so much less obvious, no?
Microsoft -loose face need new face!
Why should OSDL want to enter this challenge ? It is Microsoft that needs ammo, because they have someone to shoot down. Linux does not need marketing figures or lies^H^H^H^Hstatistics. Linux is just there. You want it, you got it. You don't ? OK too.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Please OSDL, don't pick up the gun.
I'd cast the OSS fraternity as somewhat like Mahatma Ghandi, who I seem to recall saying something like; "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you and then you win!"
The future is Open.
By not writing application software for Linux platform, Microsoft is foolishly leaving the money on the table. They can make money out of growth of Linux if they just give in and write application software such as Office for Linux. But then again, may be Microsoft is tired of making money.
It is foolish not to give Microsoft any credit for their contributions to the modern business environment. The fact is, Microsoft's technical innovations are far more significant in the realm of business than anything done by Linus Torvalds and the open source community. It is this kind of arrogance from IT decision makers who make recommendations based on misguided biases that costs businesses lots of $$.
Art, that's total bullocks!
Which Microsoft technical innovations exactly are you referring to? Hint, the correct answer will be zero.
You're right about one thing. The arrogance of most IT decision makers has cost business lots of $$. Blinded as they are by PR material and payed and bought for manager magazine articles.
The only reason that business have found value in Microsoft solutions is because did so. In short, they all face the same overhead. That will quickly change once enough of them will have adopted and learn to like the benefits of alternative solutions. Yes, that'll mean that they'll be in the position to drive out their own competition out of the markets they operate in. For one, because of less overhead.
Microsoft first mass produced software that you didnt need a computer science degree to use
(Apple tried but due to corporate greed failed).
The future is one operating system, one set of business applications and relatively low paid mass produced support staff. It may not neccesarily be Microsoft but I can guarantee it will not be 'the lets all be different' Linux.