Comments on: Microsoft's 'photo op' moment at open-source conference?

Software giant needs to engage with open source at the code level, not the conference level.

[johnwest72]

Just when I think Matt's bias against Microsoft can't become any more evident, he has the audacity to blog on an event * HE DIDN'T EVEN ATTEND *. Congratulations on showing more and more why your opinions and blogs are worthless.

Cnet, are you going to continue to have this guy represent you (of course, officially that's not the case)? Please, get some editorial standards in place, and remove him. He doesn't deserve the spot of recognization that's being given to him.

John

[stevemorris12]

John, I think you might have missed it. Matt's colleague said the discussion was academic not evil...He complimented their Codeplex effort but is encouraging them to harness the power of open sourcing some of their applications. I don't think Matt is out of line with the post based on that view - Deep breath, there doesn't that feel better...

Steve

[Penguinisto]

Actually, the commentary makes sense. And, if there was any bias (as the obvious troll above states), then Codeplex wouldn't have been mentioned, would it?

Incidentally, most of us in FOSS have already known for years that MSFT is still trying to wrap its head around the idea of actual Open Source. They're still feeling their way around, and trying to not lose face while doing it (in light of the open hostility they've shown towards it for so long now...)

IIS would be an excellent place to start, but I fear that it likely consists of a lot of code recycled from parts of Windows' general codebase, which they likely do not want open for public review. Also, I don't think that a company whose bread-and-butter is based on proprietary software wants to have someone take IIS and improve it to the point where it would embarrass the internal coding team.

Finally, I think that the top reason why they don't really open-source anything important? Because it would then be easy for a competitor (or anyone, really) to fork the code, then port it to operating systems and platforms that compete with MSFT. This would eliminate the biggest reasons MSFT still makes any real money - vendor lock-in, and confiscatory licensing.

/P

[johnwest72]

The problem is that Matt opens with inflammatory statements like "to get a sense of any outbreaks of rage against the Microsoft machine". Then he actually acts surprised that there isn't any, and explains it away. That's the bias I'm referring to.

And here's a fundamental flaw. Penguinisto, you call it vendor lockin, and confiscatory licensing. I call it capitalism. If Microsoft creates something, in this case, IIS, they should sell it. And they should sell it for whatever the can get for it. If people will pay $1mil, they should charge $1mil. If they want to keep it to themselves, more power to them. Who are you and open source adherents to think you know how the software model should work? If you enjoy giving away your software, more power to you. But to judge companies that don't give it away is to try to create a social issue out of a simple business decision.

Tangential point: Of course, once Bug Labs and other companies make it easier to copy others' hardware solutions, you'll be telling device manufacturer's that they must give away their schematics, or else!

John

[The_Decider]

Like MS, you don't get it either.

Lock in is not about open source, it is about writing your programs to only work with system x which also happens to come from the same company.

Lots of proprietary companies thrive without lock-in. Microsoft can not. That is why they resist any change, even though it means they are left behind.

Lock in is not capitalism. Microsoft is not capitalism. Capitalism is about competition. Microsoft is much closer to communism then it is to capitalism.

Before you spout that I am wrong, think about it. Communism is about lack of choice, centralized wealth, and most definitely lock in.

[kiwibuntu]

Given Microsoft's proven track record it requires an active bias _not_ to be critical and suspicious of them. Why should they get the benefit of the doubt? Fairness is not the same as naivety.

[The_Decider]

Proven track record? LOLOL

Proven to be released years late so is always behind the curve? Check

Proven to be so fragile that 12 year olds with no tech knowledge can rape it? You got it!

Proven to be a pale copy of what others are doing. Of course!

Proven themselves to release solid products that perform to even modest expections, is rock solid, and has at least some innovative features? LOL They haven't done that yet, maybe they will before hell freezes over.

So how much are you getting paid to parrot a bunch of lame talking points?

Finishing your HS diploma and maybe going to community college and take a few computer literacy courses would do you good.

The way MS is going they won't be able to afford their small army of uneducated shills, so you need to find an alternative.

Maybe you can get a MCSE and go work for minimum wage somewhere.

[Matt Asay]

John, for some reason the system seems to have neglected to register the last comment I made. Basically, I just noted that you're a blogger for Microsoft (unless it's a different John West), working in its SharePoint group. So perhaps your bias is an equal and opposing force to mine?

I think you missed the point of this post, and you've missed the point of my posts for the past 4-5 years. I'm not a Microsoft hater. I genuinely and generally like its technology - it's the business practices that I often criticize. I even like your SharePoint quite a bit, despite competing with it. As a product, it's great. As a way to lock customers into its existing platforms, it's not so great.

Microsoft will need to open up in order to compete on the web. It's not a critique - it's just required.

[johnwest72]

Matt,
I was just looking back at my history of comments, and realize that you replied. I'm actually not that John West. I've seen his name floated around. I do work as an independent consultant in the technology space, primarily development with .net, including Sharepoint, so the similarity with this guy is funny. But it ain't me.

I still think you have little credibility as a blogger here on cnet. Two reasons: 1) the majority of your posts are on Microsoft, and last I checked, cnet already has bloggers covering them, and 2) you are VP of a Microsoft competitor. Covering that up by saying your covering open source is lame. If you had a blog that was about why Alfresco is good and Microsoft is bad, I'd read it. At least then it wouldn't be, at best, misleading, and at worst, deceitful.

I still hope news.com gets a truly unbiased individual to cover open source, which will free you up to take your always-interesting, yet biased and mostly open-source-unrelated posts to another forum. When you do, send me the rss feed :).

John

[sanjivaw]

I wrote a blog in response to Zack's post which is quite appropriate here as well. Its basically about why Microsoft should not open source one of their current offerings but look at it from a different point of view.

See: http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/2008/07/response-to-microsoft-at-oscon.html

Sanjiva Weerawarana
CEO, WSO2
http://sanjiva.weerawarana.org/