Why I won't work for Microsoft
Several years ago while still working for Novell, I considered going to work for Microsoft in Europe. (Had I waited long enough, I could have worked for Microsoft while still at Novell, but that's another story, albeit one that is paying off well for Novell.) I thought I could help the company figure out open source and navigate the thorny issues that prevent it from embracing open source.
I gave up on that quixotic quest, and in retrospect it was the right decision. Sam Ramji, Bill Hilf, and others are doing a far better job of nudging Microsoft toward open source than I would have. But the bigger reason is that Microsoft has placed an apparently insurmountable hurdle in its path to fully engaging the open-source community, and to my ability to fully support its embrace of open source:
(Credit:
CNET News.com)
Patents.
It's unclear to me why Microsoft refuses to back off this issue. It stands alone in its dogmatic insistence on fouling the open-source downstream.
Microsoft's solo crusade against open source through patents baffles me. It also prevents me from working for them or with them. I'm not alone in this.
I suspect that had Microsoft gone public with its patent crusade before it did deals with Zend, SugarCRM, MySQL, JBoss, etc., it might have netted fewer of these deals, too, because it pollutes the open-source partnerships it touches. It makes everything look like a patent pledge, rather than the interoperability agreements that these companies signed up to complete.
Notice how few open-source partnerships it has announced since its declaration that Linux violates its patents? It signs with also-ran Linux desktop vendors and skittish Asian OEMs, but not with the mainstream open-source startups that are taking open source into the enterprise. It used to sign these partners. Not anymore.
Why, Microsoft? Why not act like every other software company in the industry today and engage open source on fair and equal terms? Why not stop this silly attempt to box open source in rather than letting it help you build your business?
We're to the point that many commercial open-source companies are making it acceptable to integrate proprietary and open-source licensing into their business models. This means you can, too, without giving up your proprietary revenue stream. So why not engage?
All it takes is a softening of your stance on patent infringement. You'd give up nothing. You'd gain much.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
I worked at Microsof, in the WinSE team, and its nothing out of this world. I dont know why you make such a big thing and explain why you dont work for them... let me ask you something, why do you work in your actual job?
at the end, even open-source helps some people make a living on services or support. so i'm not just putting that hat on.
***elbow's Matt in the ribs twice and laughs***
Microsoft has a better business model- they can do without Open Source and guys like Asay, and production oriented users reap the benefits.
Then why is MS in decline and OSS on the rise?
Why is OSS gaining in the business world more every quarter?
MS can't live without OSS, that is why they made all of these pacts and are slowing moving towards open source.
Microsofts business model worked when it could keep its victims ignorant.
I don't know what's so hard for people to accept about this. A person/company puts a ton of hard work into something. Then they want enough time to develop the market so they can be paid. When they are paid, they then pay their employee and give them stock options. The employees in turn spend the money in their respective local economys. Some of them leave and start new companies that in turn do the same thing, if they are lucky. Guess what? Everyone wins especially the general public. If you've been to Seattle you can see the effects of this very obviously.
Is this hard to understand? The entire open source revenues equate to about a popcorn fart in the wind relative to Apple/MS.
Meanwhile the amount of "inovation" coming out of the open source community amounts to copying 8 yo designs of Windows so I guess it is innovative too!
MS is a "big, successful company" because of its lack of ethics and a dumb move on the part of IBM.
MS has created absolutely nothing new in its history. They are not a software company, but a marketing company.
In the mean time, in another article, he praises the Mac; the most closed and proprietary computer on the market.
Besides, OSX is light years ahead of Windows in terms of useful features, use of use, stability and security. It is also built on OSS.
Open Source programs never work right (until the "next" version), and the nerds who create the stuff don't believe in documentation. Microsoft has a better business model- they can do without Open Source and guys like Asay, and production oriented users reap the benefits.
Oh, I dunno. I just finished a web project (http://goodsexnetwork.com/) and it's a roaring success. The project is completely based on open source: Ubuntu Linux Server, Apache2, PostgreSQL, Seaside/Squeak, and Darwin Streaming Server. The programs work just fine, and I've had no problems with documentation. (Ubuntu, Apache2, and PostgreSQL are well-documented. Seaside/Squeak is a bit weak but rapidly improving.) Open source rocks!
Moreover, I use the excellent FileZilla FTP client and PuTTY SSH client for maintaining the server remotely. Again, well-documented and good performance. So I don't know what your gripe with open source is.
I am one happy "production-oriented user"...and I avoided Microsoft and proprietary software.
---
Nice ad for your web project. Obviously you're a nerd. Most nerds like Open Source. Real people think 99% of it is a waste for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
- by mvpcarl May 25, 2008 5:36 PM PDT
- Wow... I love to read the stuff from good ol' Matt... Hater of all things established. Matt would rather work for a place that likely hasn't even turned a profit yet (does Alfresco even make any money?) Matt, you're lucky you weren't around a few years ago, you remind us of those commies... lol. Good luck buddy - continue to earn your $20-30,000 a year. lol
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by The_Decider May 25, 2008 7:04 PM PDT
- Another genius who doesn't understand OSS because he is afraid of it so has to resort to screaming commie! At least MS fans are consistently ignorant.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (46 Comments)