OSS PING
If you are interested in the OSS ping list please mail me
Posted on 11/08/2005 6:27:32 AM PST by N3WBI3
NEWTON, MASS. -- According to experts, the dominant operating systems in the data center by the end of the decade will be Windows and Linux -- and Microsoft is getting ready for that standoff by learning from the competition.
Jason Matusow, director of Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative, got in front of the audience at the Open Source Business Conference to promote Microsoft's simplified licensing scheme, as well as the other merits of the Shared Source Program.
He also took the opportunity to suggest that the commercialization of open source leads to less openness over time.
Experts said that by addressing the open source community, Microsoft hopes to promote its position that software should continue to be developed in the traditional "closed" way, while at the same time attempting to cash in on the community development phenomenon.
What is it?
Shared Source is Microsoft's foray into community development, started back in 2001 when Linux was still largely a hobby for the blue-haired ponytail set. It's not open source, as defined by the Open Source Institute, but it does have similar qualities, such as sharing source code and allowing changes and redistribution of products.
But according to Tony Iams, a vice president and senior analyst with Rye Brook, N.Y.-based Ideas International, the goals of shared source and open source are very different.
Iams said Linux operates in a way that allows the best ideas to come from the development community. Then those best features are enshrined into the next offering and dictate the direction of the operating system.
But shared source takes a different approach.
"Microsoft gives people access, but not to cause upstream change that will roll into its products," Iams said. "They aren't letting the community control the direction of their development."
Microsoft's philosophy is to only share code where it makes sense, with a specific goal in mind.
Matusow said opening up software can add value, "but you need to understand why you want to open certain software. We are building intellectual property into software and trying to sell it. We throw code over the wall for the community to build on it."
According to Charles King, principal analyst with Hayward, Calif.-based Pund-IT Research, Microsoft would do well to capture the collaboration of the Linux community, but to equate shared source and open source as the same thing would be ludicrous.
King said shared source is like making improvements on an apartment. It might improve your quality of life, but at the end of the day, Microsoft owns the building.
Simplified system
The big news from Microsoft at the event was the simplification of its shared source licensing it announced recently.
"[Shared source] is not one thing. There are over 80 releases from different groups within Microsoft. We don't speak with one voice on how we're going to do licensing," Matusow said.
But Microsoft has addressed the issue and cut the number of licenses from over 10 down to three.
The licenses fall under three levels of restrictiveness: # The permissive license allows developers to redistribute software and charge license fees. # The community license features file reciprocation -- developers have to share any changes with the community. # The reference license is intended for reading only -- no changes, no redistribution.
"[Microsoft] reduced the number of licenses because it was difficult for developers to pull projects together that fell under different agreements. This makes it cleaner," Iams said.
Open source not that open?
One of the main tenets of the shared source philosophy is that most people don't want to get down into the weeds of an operating system and make changes -- and if they do, it's going to cost them. Matusow offered Linux software provider Red Hat as an example.
Red Hat issues patch updates for its premium offering, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and keeps customers' IT infrastructure secure.
"But if a customer modifies the source code, [Red Hat] can't help you [without charging you extra]. They have to lock things down to provide value," Matusow said. "As open source becomes commercialized, it becomes less open."
Iams agreed with that point. "[Matusow] weakened the value of that ability to change code. That's a good point for certain users, but for others, it's an acceptable price to pay," he said.
King said the "Open source isn't open" argument is Microsoft's attempt to wave the Unix fear flag.
At one time, King said, Unix had been an open source program, until companies started differentiating themselves.
"Sun, HP, IBM and others all made their own models, took their toys home and built their own sandbox," King said. "[Microsoft] points to that and says it could happen again, but I think the Linux community is aware of what happened and they won't let that happen again."
Regardless of which camp you fall under, Matusow said competition between Microsoft and Linux is good for IT.
"Product competition increases choice, improves price through competition," he said, citing competition between Linux flavors from Red Hat, Mandrake and Novell. "Product competition is healthy."
OSS PING
If you are interested in the OSS ping list please mail me
In other words, Microsoft is perfectly happy to use a community of developers and their talents for their own benefit, but certainly not the other way around.
Regardless of which camp you fall under, Matusow said competition between Microsoft and Linux is good for IT.
"Product competition increases choice, improves price through competition," he said, citing competition between Linux flavors from Red Hat, Mandrake and Novell. "Product competition is healthy."
This has to be the definitive and irrefutable point that anybody can draw from this article. In other words, since competition naturally drives innovation, everybody benefits, period. Thus, OSS's role in the software/IT economy is more than validated--its essential role was just spelled out.
On the other hand, i think it will be interesting to hear what GE has to say about this...
"Product competition increases choice, improves price through competition," he said, citing competition between Linux flavors from Red Hat, Mandrake and Novell. "Product competition is healthy."
So, who would be the smarter ones in this scenario? Isn't that what MS has always done? Name one "innovation" that Gates & Co. have ever come up with. Still, he's worth billions because of it.
There was also a lot of competition before OSS, which helped drive innovation. Although, admittedly, MS is not the most innovative company around.
Although, admittedly, MS is not the most innovative company around.
Second to that.
MS reminds me of General Motors, they got so big that they became complacent and lost the hunger that made them so sucessful. GM hasn't done anything revolutionary in decades (that I recall). I feel MS is heading down the same road.
If it hasn't already. But, then again, GM has been around a lot longer than MS, and has had the UAW, other unions, and lefty environmentalist and social groups push them around for decades.
To my knowledge, MS doesn't have to deal with labor or environmental issues, just unscrupulous business practices, its own over-seductive marketing schemes, and the constant and growing threat OSS places upon its monopoly.
Competition isn't a bad thing, unless you're MS...
I'm kidding, of course. =)
Actually, there is a lot of truth to what you are saying and MS is starting to pay a price for the things they've done. The competition is getting stiffer and they are being taken to court when their business practice crosses the line.
All companies peak and then have a hard fall ... I think MS is headed there.
BTW: I love your tag line!!!
Notwithstanding those profs, the campus experience up there's unique, and for anyone looking at at technical-based education to seriously give it a look.
I was in the Packaging (engineering) program up there, now I'm a PoliSci major.
The fact is that it was Gates mainly that got MS beyond that breaking point. And Ballmer isn't really helping. MS still has its security complaints, its failure to effectively fix critical flaws in its code, and struggling with trying to keep the public trust.
All as people are starting to look at Linux, Mac, and other alternatives to Windows precisely because of the bad public image resulting from over-zealous (and near pervasive) marketing and the security problems. MS, like other companies in similar straits, got itself into its mess, and oftentimes it takes a serious shakeup of the marketplace to get such a company out of it.
This is what Linux and OSS is doing. While it has a small marketshare with respect to Windows, it has a loyal following that carefully makes itself known. The same can be said for OSS, especially with the success of the Firefox browser.
For MS to survive, there has to be a serious shakeup--and one clearly enough to jolt the execs and the board at MS. And the best way for everyone to benefit from said jolt is for it to be caused by Open-Source systems and software--boiling down precisely to "Competition drives innovation, innovation drives industry; therefore competition drives industry."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.