Microsoft resumes bashing open source

Them's fightin' words!

That was my reaction when later last night I got the official Microsoft comment on my story about the Mozilla Foundation pumping new energy and funding into development of the Thunderbird e-mail software.

I'd asked about whether Microsoft was worried about competition from the project, given that Firefox has fared relatively well against Internet Explorer, and whether Microsoft would help Thunderbird programmers get their software working with Microsoft's Exchange e-mail server software.

What I got from Clint Patterson, public relations director for Microsoft's Unified Communications Group, went a couple notches beyond the "competition is healthy" category of platitudes I'd expected. Instead Patterson offered a broad criticism of open-source businesses that hark back to days of yore when top executives called the collaborative programming philosophy "un-American" and a "cancer."

"The open-source development model has yet to demonstrate the ability to support profitable software businesses that can drive the coordinated research and testing necessary to sustain innovation," Patterson said. "Many in the open-source software community have shifted to hybrid business models. They are making the same business decisions as any commercial software company in terms of what products and services to give away, what intellectual property to protect, how to generate revenue, and how to participate in the community."

It's true that there's a spectrum between fully open and fully proprietary; Microsoft deems it judicious to offer a few open-source projects, while companies at the other end such as Red Hat try to be as purely open-source as possible. Some are in the middle: Adobe has made some significant open-source moves, as with its Flex tool for Flash animation creation, while keeping its cash-cow Creative Suite firmly proprietary. Sun Microsystems, meanwhile, is in the process of moving its entire software suite into the open-source realm, with major portions such as Solaris and Java already moved.

But Matt Asay, vice president of business development at open-source document management company Alfresco (disclosure: Asay also is a blogger for CNET Networks), sees things differently from Patterson.

"The open-source community has actually been shifting away from hybrid models," he said, pointing to Alfresco, Funambol and MuleSource as examples. "Hybrid was yesterday's model, when people were still trying to get comfortable with the shift. Tomorrow's is 100 percent open, with 'proprietary services' on top."

Those services, Asay predicted, could be either for support, as in Red Hat's case, or as in Internet-hosed services--the kind of thing Yahoo is getting more serious about with its $350 million acquisition of open-source e-mail software maker Zimbra.

[MacHeads]

MiCoSloth should be afraid ...

Microsoft is obviously panicking these days ... one of my <br />collaborators visited Redmond and is a technology advisor for <br />major companies ... he has been in the business for about 40 <br />years now but as long as i knew him he was rarely wrong when it <br />came to viability of some tech companies as he mentionned <br />coming back from his trip he mentionned something "i smelled <br />that perticular smell , the smell from the beginning of the <br />beginning of the end , i was surprised , given the place i was but <br />it was there indeed , when i went through the demos , the <br />workshops , it was everywhere" . Microsoft has few new ideas in <br />terms of OS development , MSOffice is yet another bloatware <br />that keeps getting bigger and slower , and there are no new <br />paradigms emerging from the company .<br /><br />Open Source surely is a menace for the company as it is catching <br />back day after day in terms of usability. Its model is emerging <br />and expanding. Unfortunately Microsoft can't adapt to such a <br />model being a software only company , any openning is a defeat <br />and a loss since once the code is opened it is rebuilt optimized <br />and re ingeneereed in matters of days if not hours , a thing that <br />Microsoft has been fighting inside and outside the company for <br />YEARS for revenue reasons. Their main profit source being <br />support , trainning . If the company would be commited to <br />produce good software interoperability would be a priority as it <br />is for others . <br /><br />Apple had to take a risk moving from an old os model to mac os <br />X it involved loads of worries compatibility issues , some heavy <br />recompiles , loads of legacy code had to be dropped as well to <br />change paradigm , but it could only happen due to a loyal <br />userbase which Microsoft does not have at all. Apple makes <br />good products due to its culture of mastering its platform , not <br />vendorizing it which Microsoft does. I wish them luck but i wish <br />even better luck to OSS.

[rcrusoe]

I agree

that Microsoft appears genuinely scared of open source software. If they didn't perceive it as a real threat, IMO, they would just ignore it.<br /><br />However, the points you make are generally lost due to your childish use of a derogatory name for MS.

[WJeansonne]

Patterson is absolutely right...

The open source community is now facing the daunting challenges that proprietary software makers have faced since the dawn of commercial software--how to make a profitable business out of it. Moreover, they face the immense challenge of competition. And it is there the mean face of competition (depending upon your viewpoint--business or consumer), will rear its ugly head. Then, the intellectuall property issue kicks in, where one or the other will attempt to eat the other's lunch, so to speak. Once the open source community seriously starts feeding at MS's buffet, the lawsuits will kick in. That's why I wouldn't invest a dime in open source software right now until the issues are resolved. Microsoft has over 238 patents covering all sorts of OS software, so it's a risky business developing, owning or using open source software--period.

[msimoens]

Monopoly?

So why not just throw our towels in and let MS have a monopoly <br />over all software? Competition is great for business

[Steve_a]

There is a world outside the US you know....

Microsoft might claim it has patents infringed by Linux - there might be some truth in this FUD, but until Microsoft say what has been infringed then no-one can prove it either way.<br /><br />Of course that is only true in the US - Microsoft cannot make any such claims in Europe as software patents just don't exist.

[imacpwr]

If you can't beat'm.. bash'm..!!

I guess since highjacking open source has become a no-win <br />situation for MS it's back to bashing until they come up with a <br />different strategy to squelch it.

[Renegade Knight]

Innovation is a Buzzword.

Word Star, Word Perfect, Word, AmiPro, Q&#38;A, all got my resume out the door. Pick any version and any flavour and they got the job done.<br /><br />Innovation was putting word processing on the computer. After that WISIWIG. After that...the mouse?<br /><br />Opensource can keep up with real innovation. They may lack some of the polish, but anymore I'll trade polish for stable.

[MattStark]

MS just doesn't get it ... how is this possible

I am so shocked that Microsoft would send a communication like that. I guess they don't consider open source initiatives like Mozilla Firefox Foundation making over $600K per head in revenue. I blogged a bit more about why I find this article funny here: <br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://mattstark.blogspot.com/2007/09/microsoft-vs-open-source-hilarity.html" target="_newWindow">http://mattstark.blogspot.com/2007/09/microsoft-vs-open-source-hilarity.html</a>

[WJeansonne]

Yeah right, Red Hat is wildly profitable

Tell me another story! And I mean fairy tale.

[FutureGuy]

you must be kidding me

80% of mozilla's Money comes from Google, Google is as propritary as it gets. Mozilla would have been deep in red without Google money. Get your facts straight.

[jdrachmat]

The business case for OS is logical

All these skepticisms about Open Source remind me of people's reaction to Apples and Microsoft when Steve Jobs and Bill Gates first started their businesses ... all those years back in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Apples ? Microsoft ? Who they ? You must be kidding ! Tell me a better story !<br /><br />The business case for Open Source is straight forward and logical, to quote from www.cbronline.com :<br /><br />"Almost half (48%) of UK financial services and public sector organizations already use open source software, according to research by business intelligence firm Actuate. Only one in eight of the surveyed firms expressed no interest in adopting open source software.<br /><br />Freedom from licensing costs was the biggest draw, cited by 64% of survey respondents. Other key perceived benefits were not being locked into Microsoft (45%), vendor independence (43.5%), and access to source code (43%)."<br /><br />Yes, translating this demand to workable, profitable commercial product is a feat that not many OS businesses have managed. However, since the fundamental demand is clearly there, OS's success is only a matter of time.<br /><br />Contrary to what Microsoft defenders think, people HATE being locked into its MONOPOLY, being bilged dry with exorbitant prices for faulty goods and services and being restricted in what we can do (as DRM rules) with goods for which we have paid our hard-earned cash.

[bigpicture]

Open Source Business Model

If you really look at what software is from the perspective of a hardware manufacturer. It's just a driver for the hardware, if I manufacture video cards, I also need to code drivers to make the hardware work, or work at top performance.<br /><br />If I make PCs, I have to load an OS and other functioning applications on it, to make it a useful product. So what do I want? I want ubiquitous high quality software of all kinds, that is open and free, or of little cost.<br /><br />I also want open standards for this software, the same as the hardware standards, a USB device will plug into and work all computers no matter who manufactures it. Same with hard drives, or an ATX motherboard, or, or, or. In the eyes of a hardware manufacturer software should be the same. So who is it that mostly supports open software, and open software standards such as Open Document etc. Is it not the hardware manufacturers, because they don't want MS to dictate the direction of their business.

[msimoens]

Competition is good!!

I work mainly in sales and competing with other companies has <br />driven us to cut costs and make everything better than our <br />competition. I'd say let MS keep "bashing". It's obvious to anyone <br />that MS is genuinely scared. And they should be!<br /><br />How many people are involved in making linux better? How <br />many are getting paid for it and how many are doing it on their <br />free time? If they are doing it on their free time then money is <br />not an issue. And like one of the other commenters said, <br />organizations like Firefox do make money. I recently just threw <br />Vista into the garbage and went with a linux distro. I was <br />worried cause I wouldn't have iTunes for my iPod and many <br />other things but it's all there. Everything I was doing on <br />Windows I am now doing on linux. Now linux has somethings <br />that's making me mad but give it time and it'll be fixed. How can <br />I complain when it was FREE!!!!<br /><br />I'm not saying MS isn't needed, linux isn't for everyone. I have a <br />Mac but I also had to pay for a whole new computer to get it (I'm <br />sure people have gotten Mac OS to work on a normal PC). I like <br />that companies like Dell have started to get behind the <br />movement, I'm sure they are loving the cost savings and not <br />getting bullied by anyone. There is room for the two: open <br />source and proprietary.

[ColdMast]

Open Source continues bashing Micro$oft

you can't compete with free beer.

[parrisdc]

MS Never Heard of Ada Core

Ada Core Technologies has been sustaining <br />innovation for over 20 years. <br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://blue-gnu.biz/content/ada_core_technologies_free_software_business_model_viable" target="_newWindow">http://blue-gnu.biz/content/ada_core_technologies_free_software_business_model_viable</a><br /><br /><br />Go fish!

[CD Baric]

Microsoft doesn't innovate...

Microsoft most often buy's or steals technologies it likes and then extends the operative protocols to deny competition.<br /><br />Microsoft has only been successful where it has extended it's desktop monopoly, nowhere else.<br /><br />Take Microsoft search... please!<br /><br />Or Zune or Great Plains or MSN or XBox or a dozen other monetary black holes where Microsoft has either bought support by selling hardware or providing services at a loss - that's not innovation!<br /><br />And lastly, Vista is not innovation - it is the biggest turkey Microsoft has ever produced even outscaling the likes of Bob or Windows Millenium.<br /><br />To think Vista is the best a company like Microsoft can do proves the company is in serious trouble.<br /><br />Open Source and the open distributed development system is the most innovative business model to come along in 30 years thanks to the crazy genius and vision of Richard Stallman and skilled and talented work ethic of Linus Torvalss (and many many others).<br /><br />CD Baric

[gary.edwards]

The OpenChange Project

Unfortunately much of the world is unaware of the OpenChange Project launched by members of the SAMBA Community. OpenChange is a young project, but there are working solutions already. And everything is Open Source Software portable across multiple operating systems.<br /><br><br><br />The OpenChange road map has a range of deliverables coming down the line over the next few months, the first of them being a client-side library to replace MAPI.DLL, for all Outlook functionality. It's called <i>libmapi</i>, and it works on multiple operating systems. Microsoft Exchange cannot tell that an application using <i>libmapi</i> is not Outlook.<br /><br><br><br />The OpenChange Project has three goals:<br /><br><br><br /><b>Goal 1:</b> Make Exchange protocols completely open and documented, with one free implementation and others encouraged. This is well on the way to being achieved, (ExchangeRPC ). The results could even be turned into a formal standard, giving a legacy-compatible starting point for real groupware innovation.<br /><br><br><br /><b>Goal 2:</b> Distribute <i>libmapi</i> far and wide for people to build clients, with sample implementations. OpenChange does not (and cannot) build rich GUI clients, but we can teach other people how to speak the language of Exchange. <i>libmapi</i> is a very simple-to-use library. The OpenChange Project has produced a plugin for the Evolution groupware client to illustrate the possibilities. Now it's on to a meet with the Mozilla Thunderbird group to fully exploit this potential.<br /><br><br><br /><b>Goal 3:</b> Create a native protocol replacement for Exchange. This is only beginning, because we're concentrating on the client side. However in a couple of months we will be revisiting our functional prototype server. The addressbook function works, and some parts of the rest. Outlook thinks it is talking to Exchange server.<br><br><br /><br />A white paper on this issue is available, <a href="#">Linux MAPI Programming Over Exchange RPC?</a><br /><br><br><br />The OpenChange Project promises to release interoperability between non Outlook clients and the Exchange Server. The project also promises to do the reverse; release interoperability between Outlook bound clients and OSS alternatives to the Exchange Server.<br /><br><br><br />Much work has gone into the area of writing open file format plug-ins to MSOffice, in hopes of intercepting bound workgroup-workflow business before they are transitioned over to the Exchange/SharePoint Hub. The OpenChange Project promises to perfect the same kind of non disruptive interception of OutLook Exchange bound business processes. And do so before these processes can get hardened into the emerging MS Stack of desktop, server, device and web systems.<br /><br><br><br />Both of these efforts are needed to break the the business process lock Microsoft enjoys through the MSOffice desktop monopoly. Chit chat with Microsoft execs isn't going to do it. <br><br> <br /><br />Hope this helps,<br><br />~ge~<br><br><br /><br /><br />Contact Dan Shearer of the OpenChange Project for more information:<br><br><br />[e-mail] / [e-mail] / [e-mail]

[DarkPhoenixFF4]

I'm not surprised

There are some VERY good replacements for Exchange/Outlook out there in the FLOSS world, but most business pass them by because it would require replacing both sides at the same time. Allowing other clients to access Exchange is a good start, since then the clients can be changed first, and the servers later.