Get over it already. Microsoft is not the Anti-Christ
Give Brad Smith credit: he didn't wuss out in front of a potentially hostile crowd.
Late Tuesday afternoon, Microsoft's top lawyer got on stage at a open-source conference in San Francisco and tried to find common ground with the audience.
In the end, it was mission accomplished, and he commanded a nice ovation from the crowd. Still, it's clear that a big divide separating Microsoft from open-source advocates remains.
Smith was sent to the conference to offer another olive branch. Open source raises all sorts of intriguing--and thorny--problems for Microsoft, which still struggles to coexist with a movement that's seemingly gaining strength by the day. And Microsoft still has its work cut out in convincing the open-source world that it's ready to bury the hatchet and repair what's been a tempestuous relationship.
Listening to the questions from audience members was instructive. A lot of people in the community still distrust Microsoft's motives--let alone what they dismiss as fig leaf attempts to participate in the community.
Smith repeatedly sought to persuade the audience that Microsoft's good intentions were genuine. Maybe they are, but that's where the company is hard-pressed to convince the diehards.
Brad Smith,
general counsel,
Microsoft
Most of the people I spoke with yesterday want Microsoft to contribute back to the open-source community in a big way. The pledge last month not to sue over open source and foster more interoperability was a good first step, they acknowledged. But they want a lot more than soothing words.
I think Smith got the message, though he and the rest of Redmond's top brass are still trying to figure this one out. He went out of his way to agree that the likely future of software would be marked by "multiple business models" and that the market was big enough for everyone to coexist.
I'm not going to alibi for Microsoft. When it comes to open source, the company's been so dumb and arrogant that you have to wonder whether someone spiked the water supply in Redmond. But some folks don't want to grok that times change, and even idealogues soften their thinking when confronted with reality.
Toward the end of the question-and-answer session, one guy dredged up a list of silly comments made by senior managers and threw it back in Smith's face. Does Microsoft still believe open source is the equivalent of cancer or communism, he asked?
Smith didn't take the bait, and in his lawyerly best manner, he made it clear that Microsoft has turned the page and moved on.
Probably good advice for all concerned.
Charles Cooper has covered technology and business for more than 25 years. Before joining CNET News, he worked at the Associated Press, Computer & Software News, Computer Shopper, PC Week, and ZDNet. E-mail Charlie. 
"paying the price for resisting Open Source for such a long time"
You didn't seem to get the point. Everything doesn't have to be open source. It's perfectly possible for open/closed source software and business models to co-exist in harmony. Look at the Novell-MS partnership for proof. Novell is thriving - look at its financials since it signed the deal with MS.
And MS has done nothing damaging to Novell in the last 2 years since they signed the agreement.
"Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning."
- Bill Gates
Sorry, I couldn't resist. :-)
But deep down you know the odds are, they haven't.
people want to make money, nothing to be shamed about. ms does it by selling software, open source, backed by the once defeated, comeback with a different model to make money, by geting you to use it first, then make money.
trying to be holy can easily get yourself into a cult, be warned. unless, that's where you had in mind.
While you say you are not trying to make alibis for MS, according to you those that don't simply accept assertions by MS are diehards - why not just go all the way and say fanatics? You then characterize truly foul comments designed to drive users away from free or oss software as 'silly' instead of as malevolent.
Oh. And when DID Balmer stop threatening Linux, exactly? Was it oh, say, October of last year? November? Not even 6 months ago? So - if the head guy shuts up for a couple of months we are supposed to believe that a company founded on first shady, then unethical and then finally predatory practices (remember that they are CONVICTED abusers) just decided to play nice, even though they STILL bring up patent threats, stack the membership of standards committees, and insist that it's Free & OSS's fault that there are interoperability issues between Linux and MS - despite the fact that MS actually has ALL of the source used in and on Linux - while MS had to have it's secret APIs pried out of them by the combined power of the nations of the European Union?
Yes! Let's all drop our guard! Hoorah! MS is now a good guy! They say so! Let's all hold hands while Novell hums Kumbaya softly in the background and SCOx plays guitar. Miguel can make some kool-aid for us, too.
Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
We learned.
Even if you want to believe that MS have turned over a new leaf, are competing on quality, the FACT remains that Linux competes with MS, and that MS has a history of doing doing anything it wants to DESTROY competition. Not win, not dominate, but DESTROY. The company has no ethics that last longer than it takes for a check to cash.
Microsoft has been busted & convicted for stealing code and integrating it into their OS; now we are supposed to believe they respect 'IP' (stupid term)? When the same guiding players are in power there?
Oh, no. They will have to offer more than words. They will have to demonstrate more than willingness to talk. They will have to provide more than non-implementable standards.
Until they do, articles like this one are either bait for MS-Traps, or sheer starry-eyed foolishness.
Sorry.
And all this because of IP claims ... IP that the EU has found not to be "substantially innovative". Although tech people could've told you that a long time ago: all MS "protocols" are obfuscations of existing standards, or simply binary blob's tied to their specific software.
- by Dalkorian March 26, 2008 3:51 PM PDT
- M$ is not the Anti-Christ? Says who? Come on already, I can hear baby Jesus crying! Unless you care to argue that M$ is *worse* than the Anti-Christ, that one I would believe. Really now, it's a lawyer claiming that M$ wants suddenly to offer peace to the same group of people they have been threatening (without merit) for years now and you believe him? Talk about gullible!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(11 Comments)Take WGD - winblows genuine disadvantage. Please. It was a *beta* program foisted upon all their customers as a critical security update from winblows update (people are now trying to demonize Apple for distributing Safari through Apple's software update program, despite the FACT that it was clearly marked as "Safari" and gave you the option to decline it). WGD broke for a great number of people (myself included) and accused them (ME!) of being a lowlife pirate thief for running a *LEGALLY PURCHASED* version of XP and LOCKED US OUT OF OUR OWN MACHINE! That was the day I installed Linux on my box and turned away from the dark side.
M$ can kiss my shiny metal rear. I will *NEVER* make that mistake again! Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.