Management
Technology
- Applications
- Business Intelligence
- Development
- Hardware
- Mobile & Wireless
- Networking
- Internet
- Operating Systems
- Security Products
- Servers & Datacentre
- Storage
Toolbox
Training
Books
White Papers
Webcast
Resource Centre
Is Microsoft Poisoning its Sea of Troubles?
May 12, 2008
Posted by: Glyn Moody
Today seems to be Microsoft Monday. While the company has developed a death-wish in its relations with the European Commission, it is doing something fascinating with its other bête noire, open source. But first, some context.
As I wrote some while ago, Microsoft has tried just about every form and flavour of FUD in an effort to discredit open source, all to no avail. And so it has changed tack in a very interesting way: instead of hating free software, it has decided to love it to death.
Manifestations of this new-found infatuation for all things open include sponsoring open source conferences; setting up The Interoperability Forum; singing the praises of Open Source Heroes; and setting up an entire section of its web site devoted to open source. Most interestingly, perhaps, it has started snuggling up to leading open source projects. Here's the latest such move, an attempt to “reach out” to the “3-D content creation suite”, Blender (an amazing program if you've never tried it, BTW):
I recently was contacted by Microsoft Development, they've assigned one of their people with the job to support open source projects better.
There are some tantalising hints as to what exactly that “support” might entail:
With respect to Blender, what can you tell me about your community/user feedback that you have heard regarding file formats? Specifically, Microsoft is slowly shifting toward a more open standards based approach to its file formats. The ISO standard Office Open XML is an example of the direction we are moving towards.
OOXML is an example, eh? So, in other words, we're talking about pseudo-open file formats – ones that enjoy all the kudos of openness, but which are still effectively controlled by Microsoft, the only company able to implement them fully – just as with OOXML.
Even more interesting is the following:
A good user experience of Blender on Windows is good for your project/community and good for Microsoft. What we are trying to understand is what file formats, which are not open or not fully open, are impeding the optimal experience with your community. If this is an important issue to your users then it also accrues to the experience in Windows.
This seems to be the heart of Microsoft's new approach. It wants to ensure that Blender – and ultimately all open source programs – run well on Windows. Why? Because the foundation of the free software world is GNU/Linux. While that exists as a viable alternative to Windows, Microsoft has very little power over the rest of open source.
Imagine, though, a day when open source programs run well on Windows. Given that the installed base of Windows is currently much larger than that for GNU/Linux, this means that many open source developers are likely to start paying more attention to Microsoft's platform, even to the detriment of GNU/Linux versions. As a result, some coders will be more amenable to including “optimised” technologies like Silverlight in their Windows versions. And so it will begin: the gradual pollution of free software with proprietary elements and software patents.
If Microsoft's old approach can be likened to Hamlet's attempt to “take arms against a sea of troubles” - a futile effort - it's new, more subtle, tactic might be characterised as poisoning that sea. As we know from real life, that's all-too easy, and particularly hard to prevent, especially as it can occur very slowly and imperceptibly to begin with.
To prevent the poison building up to noxious levels, open source projects need to be extremely wary when responding to Microsoft's chummy enquiries, or they may ultimately find themselves repeating Hamlet's more famous quotation from the opening of the same speech.
Now read
Microsoft U-turn to stop Linux dominating ultra low cost PCs
Follow highlights from ComputerworldUK on Twitter
Sign up for our Daily Newsletter
The UK IT News widget Get it for your site!
<<newer entry | back to blogs index | older entry>>
Advert
Email this article to a friend or colleague:
PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the recipient know who sent the story, and in case of transmission error. Both your name and the recipient's name and address will not be used for any other purpose.
- This article is now being printed.
What are your views on this subject? Use the form below to post a comment on this article up to 1000 characters.
Click below to add 'Is Microsoft Poisoning its Sea of Troubles?' to your blog.
If you do not have a ComputerworldUK Account and would like to use this feature, please Register.
If you are a registered, logged-in user, this will post the title and first paragraph of this story to your blog to share with your readers.
Advert
Newsletters
Sign up to our Weekly Round-Up for the past week’s not-to-be-missed news analysis and insight delivered straight to your inbox.
WHITE PAPERS
-
Legal risks: Employee use of the internet and email
Exploring the challenges facing IT Mangers today and vital steps to ensure safe internet an email use by employees. -
Phishing for victims
This White Paper examines the phenomenon of phishing. It explains the potentially catastrophic threat it presents to all kinds of organisation. Exploding some widespread myths, it lights up the murky waters where phishing first emerged and where it continues to evolve. But it also highlights what your business can do to blunt the threat.
About the author
Glyn Moody Glyn Moody's look at all levels of the enterprise open source stack. The blog will look at the organisations that are embracing open source, old and new alike (start-ups welcome), and the communities of users and developers that have formed around them (or not, as the case may be).
Comments received
Eldon said on Tuesday, 13 May 2008
Are you sure they aren't just doing some research to support their appeal to the EC? Maybe they need to prove that formats, APIs and protocols that need to be open are open.
Michael Tiemann said on Tuesday, 13 May 2008
I can think of two things that Microsoft could do right off the bat to make the user experience with Blender better. First, they could add support to blender's file format support so that Blender can generate movie files that can play perfectly with unmodified Windows Media Player. If this requires pledging some software patents to a patent commons, then so be it.
The second thing they could do is to modify Windows Media Player to be able to play any format that Blender knows how to output. I was shocked when I tried to share an animation file with a friend who used Windows and was basically unable to find /any/ option that Windows Media Player could play, either because it could not open the container or because it did not support the codec. VLC had no such problems with any files I produced. Can Microsoft really not produce a more inclusive media player?
With these two gestures, Microsoft will make it possible for Blender artists to develop content that can be viewed by us
Ferdinand said on Tuesday, 13 May 2008
While watch word is to not trust Microsoft in any way (an obvious thing to do), there is little that can really be done to make Blender more effective on Windows than other platforms. Blender is faster on non-windows platforms, Blender can access more memory on other platforms than Windows, and a lot of primary development is done on non-windows platforms (Mac OSX). It still remains one of the most heavy users of OpenGL (and there are no plans immediate or distant to switch to DirectX) as DirectX is a one-trick pony and OpenGL goes everywhere. Blender started out as an application on the Amiga. Its port to Windows is less intentional than its port to Linux.
ralvez said on Tuesday, 13 May 2008
If Microsoft wants to be "open" they only have to abide by open standards; that's all.
I would be very,very suspicious of the good intentions of a several times convicted monopolist, especially one that hates open source.
Felipe said on Tuesday, 13 May 2008
I love the line:
"What we are trying to understand is what file formats, which are not open or not fully open, are impeding the optimal experience with your community."
Meaning... what files can >microsoft< use that no one else can...
Glyn Moody said on Tuesday, 13 May 2008
@Eldon: well, that's a generous interpretation....
Glyn Moody said on Tuesday, 13 May 2008
@Michael: certainly the second of those would be an obvious demonstration of Microsoft's willingness to work with the open source community.
As to the first, I can't see Microsoft making those pledges in any useful way - it tends to fall back on the RAND approach. Indeed, the day it *does* make serious contributions to the patent commons will be the day it starts to get serious about working with free software.
Glyn Moody said on Tuesday, 13 May 2008
@Ferdinand: interesting. Maybe that's precisely why they've made this approach to Blender - as a kind of test case to see how they can "fix" this kind of "problem".
Told Ya So said on Tuesday, 13 May 2008
Hey Michael Tiemann, if your the same Michael T from the OSI board, it was you and the OSI that has given MS some of it's poison to use on us FOSS people. Just wanted to bring that into perspective.
Jose_X said on Tuesday, 13 May 2008
Other points..
Without tapping into the growing quantity of quality FOSS apps, Windows/Vista will fail. This may not seem likely to many, but look at the potential in a custom LiveCD Linux distro. It represents a full computing platform that is open to all sorts of customizations (boon to value-add resellers AND to DIY users -- a growing bunch as the tools improve); is essentially free (great for end users and as a platform tool for marketing purposes or business use); is usable and becoming more so at an alarming rate (consider all the apps); is safer than Monopolyware in many ways; is third party dev neutral; stands to save many industries from Monopolysoft's clutches; will lead to new industries; etc.
But most importantly to MSFT is that, were Windows/Vista to fail, Monopolysoft ceases to be. They may then become Microsoft again and that will kill their current ability to control profits, affecting very negatively the ambitions of many of its major stockholder-execs.
(cont)
Jose_X said on Tuesday, 13 May 2008
But EVEN MORE importantly is the huge commitment Microsoft has to its next wave of products and protocols. If people don't take up Vista, there are not too many more reasons for people to continue paying Microsoft (especially with Linux so close). Microsoft's other businesses are losing money, and their expertise (eg, for support and other extensions) is with Windows not Linux. Quickly perhaps their huge expenditures would overwhelm revenues leading to a company 1/10th or ? their current size.
So you see, Microsoft could be fighting for it's life, and it would really need FOSS to play their game.
The best thing FOSS projects can generally do is to have ZERO code inside them that
would allow them to run on (non-standards based) Windows. Many will create such porting code, however, especially as long as Microsoft has money to buy off dev time from companies (eg Novell) and from individuals and Linux remains foreign to so many.
(cont)
Jose_X said on Tuesday, 13 May 2008
Instead of trying to reach out to current Windows users on Monopolysoft's closed sandbox, we need to build the kool LiveCD distros that have yet to be built. Each FOSS project should have at least one distro to support and highlight their product. You can do much more with a custom project distro than with a mere project package to be placed inside generic distros. Think of how much canvas (sight and sound) there is in a custom distro just for your project's use! For example, build an integrated audio-visual experience aimed at noobs.
And distros are becoming cheap to run.. at least on Linux through virtualization. [Naturally, such a distro would support many other apps, too]
I also suggest to have terrific open documentation of how you built your distro since this too would serve as an attraction to that distro (leading to spin-offs of it) and also help other distros and Linux overall.
(cont)
Jose_X said on Tuesday, 13 May 2008
... [I am not ignoring the usefullness of package bundling but am suggesting that more than that can be done in the short-term to bring users to your app and to Linux.] ...
Besides custom distros, there are many more ways to add value to a user's experience to bring them over to Linux (eg, online peer gaming networks that maintain universal state; FOSS readymade websites users can take for their own; online services and contests; etc). But the key is to tap into Linux. Give them Linux and require Linux. Porting to Monopolyware hurts uptake and improvement of open platforms. Avoiding Monopolyware's non-standard integration forces the Monopolist to port their platform over to us.
Engage the world but on our open terms. WinFOSS is closed since every really important library call has to go through Monopolysoft's grips. Avoid it if you value freedom and control .. or simply if you want to end monopoly control once and for all.
(cont)
Jose_X said on Tuesday, 13 May 2008
Michael Tiemann's comment above highlights that Monopolysoft's recent hand reaching isn't about making a few more bucks but about the crucial importance monopoly control has to Monopolysoft and about how far they have gone in their own direction.
Ordinary folks would think (cough) Microsoft (cough) would gain by being as inclusive as possible and accepting others' formats. That is what they have done in the past (embrace/extend). Why lose a Windows sale for not being more accepting of Blender and other FOSS that otherwise won't run well on Monopolyware? Embrace and extend OpenGL, right?
Well, I think they have outrun developers and have too much invested in Untrustworthy Computing and its tools/formats. They are trying to help us back onto the rat race, but in a way that is not too costly for them.
(cont)
Jose_X said on Tuesday, 13 May 2008
And once WinFOSS apps are hooked, ie, have significant functionality not well supported on Linux, Monopolysoft can begin to successfully require that FOSS and royalty-free output from their tools (eg, VisualStudio) use MS licenses that restrict use of such software to Monopolyware. They will also continue to provide less than Prime Grade Interface Implementations (eg, buggy and less efficient) and less than Prime Grade Interface Services (eg, missing or incorrect documentation and after-the-fact notices of changes to interfaces) to third parties competing with Monopolysoft Application Developers.
And speaking of Monopolysoft licenses, "version X or later at your choosing" will take on new meaning when Monopolysoft controls the rewriting of said licenses. Did you not catch that version 3.01b-alpha of the MONO-GPL gave Monopolysoft full access and control over your software for $0?
(cont)
Jose_X said on Tuesday, 13 May 2008
They can fight the EU through appeals and useless promises, but as they slowly fail here and there, they will certainly have had the time to have created various tiers of WinFOSS. The low tiers will grow stale and not be used by most stuck on the treadmill. For example, virtualized Linux (necessary to get Linux on new hardware platforms) and low end WinFOSS will suffer from a low number of committers and users since most devs will want access to top MonopolywareTools and the large end user markets that will require such functionality. Getting the employee job market to adopt Monopolyware will also help to reinforce this situation and limit what any antitrust authority can do in real time. Of course, schools will come along, too ... basically, everything a "good" government would ordinarily cover to keep relative peace and avoid too much unrest will have been covered (including charities faces, consumer electronics control, and even eventually weapons).
(cont)
Jose_X said on Tuesday, 13 May 2008
Being added to the list of interlocking monopoly components today (and currently being funded through monopoly profits) are primary hardware platforms (MonopolyBox) and far reaching services (EyeLive -- which can also be read backwards (thanks to poster on thetuxproject)).
And let's not forget the continued antitrust violations from Monopolysoft today like the refusal of service packs to install when Monopolyware doesn't control the boot process. Service packs that break past and current apps on XP (putting pressure for a move to Untrustworthy Computing). Dumping of XP licenses on new low end systems, artificially set pricing differences across world markets, and the continued marketing aid tie-ins used to penalize resellers/partners not supporting Monopolyware 100%.
Glyn Moody said on Tuesday, 13 May 2008
Thanks for that long and thoughtful post. I think you should get some sort of prize for grappling with the unhelpful character limit....
Jose_X said on Tuesday, 13 May 2008
[I thought I was done, but I still have a bit left.. thanks: copy/paste to xterm; echo "xxxxxx" | wc -c]
(cont)
So.. for those of us that care about these sorts of future headaches.. why aren't we really selling Linux (primarily, but also other **open platforms** that bypass Monopoly Platforms)?
Why are we bothering to give a helping hand to help prop up closed Monopolyware instead of fighting all aspects of it?
Monopolysoft should lose in practice, but just look at how far they have gotten so far by playing us? .. always promising to tomorrow's prospective "partners" what they will eventually take away from their current ones.
Jose_X said on Tuesday, 13 May 2008
If Monopolysoft is getting bigger, someone else is getting the boot. Dell, Intel, and Novell will eventually. Today's excess MSCE's will eventually. Telecoms and media conglomerates will eventually. ..or rather, the bulk of such groups will get the boot. Past Monopolyware execs, employees, and disciples who recognize what is going on will be in position to be tomorrow's partners and keep a nice piece of cake; yes, Monopolysoft will use tomorrow's partners and expanded customer base to clean out the excesses of today's partners and workforce.
Is capitalism really meant to lead to Monopolism? .. to the world according to Bill Gates?
[over and out]
Mark said on Wednesday, 14 May 2008
I wonder if this tactic could be undermined by OSS programmers only writing for windows systems that MS wants to stop supporting, thereby applying the brakes to the MS money machine.
Glyn Moody said on Wednesday, 14 May 2008
Hey, that's really cunning, because users are likely to be interested in getting the most from their older systems, whereas Microsoft wants to move them on to the next expensive and unnecessary upgrade.
So this would put open source on the side of users (again), and Windows against them. I like it.
Jose_X said on Wednesday, 14 May 2008
Part 1 of 5..
>> I wonder if this tactic ....
I wouldn't consider ports to existing/old Monopolyware platforms to be generally a Good Thing, but, yes, I do think there are cases where porting to Windows helps or at least doesn't hurt as much. Openoffice, though it could be used more aggressively to bring users to Linux, at least may help take steam from Monopolysoft's major money earner MSO.
I prefer to have things like wine and virtualization be used to get closed Win apps to run on Linux so that the user can have everything on Linux. Wine, as happens by necessity, basically targets older Monopolysoft Platforms.
Also, for those that are existing Windows developers that require a migration path, things like KDE4, Java, Firefox/web, OpenGL, and various other tools allow you to build decent cross-platform apps. I definitely would encourage these developers to build cross-platform with third party tools over relying on Vis Studio.
(cont)
Jose_X said on Wednesday, 14 May 2008
One problem with playing any games with Monopolysoft is that their updates (surely it's not just the service packs) can wreck existing systems connected to the Internet. There may even be mechanisms in place to cause older systems to malfunction at an increasing rate even after reinstallations.
You can't really debug FOSS on Monopolyware. Was there a bug in the docs? Does something seem to work some of the time but not all of the times? Etc.
I certainly think that avoiding Vista/UhOhXML/etc is very important, but there are many unknowns when targetting even things like XP. In all of these cases, there is no real FOSS or real freedom, and the base LinFOSS app is not being improved while time is being spent chasing a Monopolysoft controlled target (though chasing XP should be easier than chasing Vista). Just like with the antitrust appeals process and administration changes, time helps Monopolysoft.
(cont)
Jose_X said on Wednesday, 14 May 2008
The loss of money to Monopolysoft is valuable, but who says they won't be able to find creative ways to tax their existing user base? New PCs today still continue to mostly mean coins into Monopolysoft's coffers, even when Linux is preloaded. And who says that Monopolysoft won't resurrect XP and slowly Vistamize it?
A large Linux base means hardware, service providers, app developers, and many others will target us. A small Linux base means that the ball will continue to be in Monopolysoft's court for them to ponder their next move.
(cont)
Jose_X said on Wednesday, 14 May 2008
In an ideal world, ports are great and certainly intellectually satisfying. In an ideal world, we wouldn't be hurting FOSS uptake very much through extra ports. In an ideal world, we could relax and FOSS would catch on fairly quickly because of its inherent value to the users. In a different world, we might not have Live distros, virtualization, heavy uses of the Internet by many, or various other things to help us out. But this is a nonideal world ruled by Monopolysoft.
As a developer, it is tough for me to look at ports as a bad thing, but I am willing to make an exception for Monopolysoft Platforms. I don't see a way to beat them at their game that is worth the risk in lost time that could otherwise be spent growing Linux market share and improving FOSS on Linux.
(cont)
Jose_X said on Wednesday, 14 May 2008
One area that needs to be hit so that Linux will grow faster, I think, is to grow support for Linux through local projects. It makes such a difference IMO to have nearby support: a guru, a service provider, a lug, to be able to reach almost any candidate user (even for $$).
Part of the reason why this is important is because, in this nonideal world, hardware, existing apps, and some other things are still issues. We also will have some amount of active resistance from the existing Monopolyware ecosystem players that *are* local.
Existing Linux users meeting/communicating with others in their region can really help change things. Even 1% of a large population is a lot and more than enough to make a difference locally if these network and work together.
Maybe it's not that important, but there is strength in numbers (that can be seen and touched).
CHARLOTTE27lf said on Friday, 22 January 2010
A kind of supreme article just about this good post. This is doable to go to the writing services ,which would like to make the <a href=" http://www.exclusivepapers.com">essay writing</a> and <a href=" http://www.exclusivepapers.com">custom essay</a>. Thus all would like to buy research paper.