Port 25 - Communications from the open source community at Microsoft

Comments RSS

1. fluke said:

   I am let down with not only how you choose to connect the dots but how you got the dots in the first place along with the dots you selectively excluded.  If your going to post to Port 25 items that belong as a "Get the facts" article then I am going to have that much harder a time advocating other FOSS members to read Port 25.

   .

   None of the articles that you refer to have the items listed being part of their conclusion.  Instead, it appear you took off handed opinions that are deeply nested in the articles and then used that as supporting evidence.

   .

   If IBM was in a rush to fill the gap that OS/2's failure and provide

   something where AIX was the logical upgrade path then buying out SCO would have made more sense.  OS/2 was clearly in a downward spiral long before GNU/Linux was even a blip in the commerical OS space.  But SCO already had an established user base at the time.

   .

   Likewise, IBM could tie the requirements of support for Apache with having to purchase WebSphere.  Theoritically, they could decide to just "provide" Apache with AIX but threat it is an unsupport third party throw-in.  Instead, the quality of support remains the same regardless of if your using WebSphere or not.

   .

   In the same spot where you quote that AIX was to become "the easiest and most compatible upgrade path for Linux" is also "IBM is investing equally in Linux and AIX and in making the two operating systems work well together."   So, how about it?  If Microsoft invests *EQUALLY* between Windows and SuSE, then I am sure that Microsoft will be getting a lot of love.

   .

   To some extent, IBM is just following industry trends and for that alone is not worth of much love.  To that extent the level that IBM is committed to GNU/Linux is questionable and another industry trend may take IBM in a whole new direction.  But there are contributions IBM has made do not seem to always be the type that are an easy sell to shareholders as having "value."  Is more eServers really being sold just because they handed over Jikes and OpenAFS?

   .

   Instead, IBM is getting a long term benefit of shreading it's previous of motto of "no one ever got fired by buying IBM."  While sales teams from Sun Microsystem, Computer Associates and *cough* Redmond still try to pass on the feeling of stick with the "one vendor" solution or be sorry, IBM comes across as vendor agnostic.  The fact that IBM only provides "SMIT" for administrating AIX does not seem to really be a selling point for them over Linux.  In fact, most of the people I talk to seem to think it is more of a selling point that Linux does not have it!  Do you really want an administration tool where a running man falls dead?!

   .

   But Port 25 seems to be refering to the old school defination of "open" much like the OpenDOC group and OSF group where "open" because they where more inclusive in the membership than similar software package development in the past.

   .

   Microsoft does deserve credit for a larger target audience in how it designs interfaces.  There are definately several FOSS projects where the command line is considered to be a complete UI because the target audience of the project is mostly the lead developer.  And Microsoft does have a large community built around it with great support of UseNet.  But just because Codeplex looks like SourceForge and the licenses look FOSS-like doesn't make it supporting of FOSS development.  As soon as someone has to agree to the terms of the Visual Studio SDK which makes it a violation to publically redistribute beta quality plugins or to bind to other languages then it stops being a FOSS style development effort.

   .

   And as long as we are bringing in movies to explain things, I would like to bring up the beginning of Fight Club where the main character explains that big business likes to calculate the cost of doing a fix over the cost of not providing the fix.  This methodology has a greater impact on what degree software ends up being "better" for the end user when it is closed source over FOSS.

   .

   Some of the vertical vendors I have had to deal with point to Microsoft's road map to show that critical fixes are still being made available for Windows 2000 Server.  So, no one should expect the vendor to expend energy to certify Windows 2003 Server for support of their software.  I finally even cornered one vendor to admit that sticking through the full 10 year life cycle of Windows 2000 Server, they get to leap-frog supporting Windows 2003 Server in favor of the next server edition

   .

   So, I'm dealing with customers that are stuck with running Windows 2000 Server if they like it or not.  But at least they still get critical updates, right?  Well, talking to several of these customers you might get the feeling that March 11, 2007 is a "critical" issue but there is nothing on Microsoft's site indicating it as such.  When a FOSS redistributor like RedHat drops the ball like ending critical patches for RH version 7-9, then it just create business for someone else like Progeny Transition Service.  The trust in any software package is no longer tied to also being trust in any one vendor.  But  when Microsoft redefines "critical" then what do you do?  Is this "better"?

   .

   Anyways, if Microsoft is Nixon on it's way to China, could you please stop by "Cairo" on the way?!  It really is upsetting to keep being told the MS plane ran out of fuel half way from "Chicago" to "Cairo" so we will need to crash somewhere over the atlantic.  It seems like Cairo is so close that it is almost possible to touch the exotic goods located there (like WinFS) but I guess that still is not to be.  :(

   posted at 03:18PM 02/15/2007
2. Bryan Kirschner said:

   Hi Fluke,

   I think you are reading too much criticism into the IBM examples.  IBM’s behavior being consistent with fiduciary obligation to its shareholders isn’t a criticism. It makes sense—for them. The various authors used somewhat less diplomatic language than I would ordinarily use (“failure”)—but I don’t edit quotes about MS either (“MS must..disrupt and destroy open source culture” is a real statement I wouldn’t paraphrase to make more diplomatic.)  

   Conversely, I’m not suggesting what we’re going to try is “better” in some absolute sense—although it is better for us. (Similarly, if I wasn’t clear, usability is of course relative to your users—when “the users are the developers” organic OSS projects (or for that matter, any  development process) have a much better track record than when the users are non-technical.)

   I can state categorically the last thing I think is useful is a debate about who is “more open” or “deserves more love”—in point of fact, every corporation has an obligation to behave rationally.  What will be interesting is “competition” among vendors to think to be rational and creative at the same time--and perhaps offer something that is different, and appealing, and valuable.  

   Life is full of trade-offs all the time: a business case constraint that we conclude means we’re stuck doing what the other vendors do but less kind of sucks; getting motivated by that to figure out if what’s different about use enables us to pursue something different is cool.   Whether that turns out to be “better” or worse is a matter of judgment up to you (and everybody else) to decide.

   posted at 07:10PM 02/15/2007
3. mdolan said:

   First, in the spirit of informed and open communication, I have been involved in leveraging open source for years myself, have consulted with many companies on open source, and I currently work for IBM around Linux and open source.

   Your post here is not only reckless but you also demonstrate a pure misunderstanding about why vendors participate in community innovation around open source. It amazes me that you've taken 4 lackluster/misinformed reports at best, abstracted 4 points completely out of context, and then connected them as if they told 'the story'.

   I thought this site was supposed to be for an open discussion with the community about how Microsoft genuinely wanted to work with the community. I assumed Microsoft was using the site to leverage OSS above the OS - some possibly in the OS.

   Meeting Anandeep at OpenSolutions Summit led me here to check it out again after some time having written it off as just an outlet for FUD. Anandeep just published a fairly respectful report on OpenSolutions Summit but then I saw this. Clearly some things will never change and if this post reflects most of the content here, this site should be more appropriately relocated to http://port25.getthefacts.com.

   posted at 08:24AM 02/16/2007
4. fluke said:

   Bryan Kirschner: Regardless of if your claims is a criticism or not, it still comes off as offensive.  While I wouldn't go as far to call them misinformed reports, these articles seem to be provide prospectives instead of facts.  So, you are using opinions as backing to your own opinion article.  While I did enjoy both the Mann and Iansiti/Richards papers, the way you present them leaves a lot to be desired.  Even worse, the conclusions aren't even consistent across your references.  For example, you use Fitzgerald as backing that IBM is positioning itself to be anti-Microsoft.  Yet Mann points out that Sun ends up being the director competitor to against a IBM/Linux adoption.  He describes IBM's anti-Microsoft method as being "at best an incomplete story."  To go right from refering to a piece that describes it has *AT BEST* an incomplete story to then emphasing the conclusion you draw from Fitzgerald instead is offensive.  You never explain why Mann's level headed assestment on the anti-Microsoft stance is not worthy of emphases and Fitzgerald's stance on the subject is.  Instead, you are cherry picking through these opinion pieces to emphasize your own point which I do not think really does either their articles or your own any justice in the end.

    .

   The Microsoft vs. Linux/Bill G. vs. Linus T./good vs. evil war seems to be sensationalized crap that was initially pushed by ESR that the popular press ate up like candy.  I don't see how this spin on things actually helps FOSS in the long term.

    .

   "increasing the ability of small groups of people to collaborate to produce better applications using platform technologies like Windows, Office, and .NET is, I would argue, uniquely consistent with Microsoft’s business model."

    .

   I am sorry but you are wrong!  When a CIO hands down to his company that he needs to be able to use all company material on his MacBook and Microsoft has no commitment to VB script support in the latest version of Office for the Mac then a feature that employees of the company where used to using suddenly becomes unavailable much like pulling the rug out from someone still standing on it!  It is not like a FOSS project being dropped by a vendor's support list where the support then gets pushed out to the company, the community or a different vendor.  In this case, the feature completely disappears leaving the company feeling uncertian of the roadmap of other features the company continues to leverage.  Over all, feature for feature OpenOffice is not really overly creative or appealing over MS Office and does not even provide any solution to those wishing to keep VB Script functionality on the Mac.  Instead, the appeal of OpenOffice is allowing the company to influence the roadmap according to the company's own needs or commitments.

    .

   "every corporation has an obligation to behave rationally"

    .

   What rock have you been under?  Sony distributes XCP rootkit and then denies the security issues it causes.  HP probes it's own board members.  Microsoft releases an audio player which violates it's own "PlayForSure" campaign.  Are companies really honoring their obligation to behave rationally?  Is this really what a company seeking to build/extend a brand name and gain consumer trust should be doing??

    .

   "I can state categorically the last thing I think is useful is a debate about who is “more open” or “deserves more love”"

     .

   You really honestly think that debating who is more open or deserves more love is not useful??  Because I am seeing businesses (and to a smaller extent the home market) getting sick of using a central vendor putting it's own quarterly profits first.  What exactly is that vendor committed too and how can the company respond if the vendor's commitments/roadmap doesn't fit with the expectations of the company.  FOSS gives a company further flexiblity.

    .

   "More open" will be a growing hot topic in the popular press this year and exclusing Port 25 from the subject would be a mistake.  Steve Jobs has said he would prefer of iTunes music store did not have to use DRM.  Yahoo Music Chief claims non-DRM downloads sell twices as fast and MS DRM does not work half the time.  Sony Connect music using MagicGate DRM does not seem to be gaining any consumer acceptance.  There are complaints that it is a toss up between if Zune music store songs can be squirted or not without any information provided before purchase.  Popular press is slowly getting involved in debates if MS trusted media path really provides benefits to the end consumer.  It isn't clear if a Xbox360/HD-DVD bought last Christmas will play back future movies in full 1080P or down sample to 540P due to lack of HDCP support.  DRM isn't just a hot topic for people discussing the text of GPL v3 anymore!

    .

   Being a "good will" company that is "more open" and whoos the "love" of the FOSS community will bring with it future business benefits in the long term.  Despite all the popular press claims that GNU/Linux developers are inherently anti-MS, the option to whoo the FOSS community is just as much available to MS.  But just evolving MSDN by making example code more available in a SF look-a-like website does not address the issues with the MS SDKs licenses which make following FOSS development practices a license violation and illegal.

    .

   mdolan: Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.  You can probably count on Anandeep to provide useful information in the future.  And even some of the articles that Bryan Kirschner points out are not really misinformed reports but rather interesting prospective pieces when left in context.

   posted at 05:23PM 02/16/2007
5. einhverfr said:

   First, I predicted back in 2000 that IBM was going to make Linux the successor of AIX.  I did this because I thought that the realities of their markets would make this inevitable.  However, I think that both Fluke and Brian are missing the real reasons why this is both adviseable and necessary for a vendor like IBM.

   Every major proprietary UNIX vendor with the exception of IBM and the possible exception of Sun has been in the red most of the time since the .com fall.  The reason is quite simple:  these are small markets with often expensive hardware requirements, so there is little money left over for R&D.  IBM saw this coming and started investing in Linux.  Therefore, IBM can leverage competitors' R&D budgets for their own server sales and avoid this problem to a great extent.  I said, in 2000, that they were past the point of no return, and subsequent developments have since seemed to  confirm my position.  This isn't a matter of diversification, it is a matter of escape from an economic trap.  Further steps IBM has taken include the development of a successful services business (accounting for over half of their profit these days).

   However, I do think that IBM also deserves a great deal of credit in pioneering the use of open source software licenses to deal with patent threats.  In fact, they have gone so far in this area that they received a great deal of criticism from many for the wording of the IBM Public License because it was perceived that it would neutralize patents of those who merely used the software (which was, naturally, the whole point).  This license had been used for the release of OpenAFS.  The same idea, while toned down, has been included (I think) in the Common Public Licnese, the Apache License 2, and now likely the GPL v3.

   I have never found any large organization to be "rational."  Such an organization takes on a life of its own and almost always there is at least some irrationality.  Instead, I see corporations as similar to the Etins of Norse Myth-- non-conscious embodiments of nature, predictable and almost mechanistic in nature, but individual and distinct nonetheless.  They are only good or evil depending on how we structure our interactions with them, however.  Hating corporations is little different than hating the wind because of what happened here in Washington State this last winter.  Yet under most circumstances, the wind is vital to the production of crops (without wind, there would be no rain), and we can generate electricity with it.  So just like people, corporations are a mixture of good and bad. There is no "evil empire."  At least not any more.

   Best Wishes,

   Chris Travers

   posted at 01:58PM 02/19/2007
6. Bryan Kirschner said:

   einhverfr,

   IMO I would follow your statement "There is no "evil empire."  At least not any more." with "But we are all servants of x86."

   In terms of where any copoeration sees opportunities (or threats) over the last 6-7 years that is a huge factor...that is a good point.

   posted at 05:43PM 02/19/2007
7. Bryan Kirschner said:

   A pivot on this topic was hashed out on slashdot lass week, where, on first read, my gut is it may have been *less* controversial (--or I may be underestimating  because the BTUs weren't directed at me<g>)).  A variety of interesting comments (plus a few damned funny ones for god measure) here:

   Has Open Source Lost Its Halo? http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/15/1947224

   posted at 05:52PM 02/19/2007
8. Port 25 said:

   I just read Bill and Sam’s “Business as Usual” post. It made me think about the fact Port 25 was established in part to apply the idea that “transparency increases trust” to the work we do with the lab. So I’m sitting down to do a blog entry that’s a

   posted at 05:07PM 05/20/2007