Microsoft is the largest software company in the world, a point to which I think just about everyone will agree. They have used a closed source model for their entire existence, but their recent actions make me wonder if they are experimenting with the idea of becoming at least somewhat open source.
Most people would believe that the moon exploding would be a much more likely scenario than Microsoft changing it’s business model. However, to the surprise of all, Microsoft recently attempted to release 20,000 lines of code to the Linux community. The code wasn’t accepted, and there was a great deal of debate surrounding the submission, and even confusion over the true purpose of the sudden move.
Some may argue that Microsoft can’t be trusted, but I honestly think that Microsoft knew the code wasn’t going to be accepted. Perhaps the entire purpose of the submission was to experiment with submitting open source code to see what such an experience entails. It’s the perfect plan: submit code that would never be accepted in the first place, and get a first hand look at the process without having to actually commit to anything. Brilliant! That’s just an assumption on my part, but it fits. Microsoft may be many things, but they’re not stupid.
Windows 7 itself even strengthens my opinion. Sure, it retails for up to $320, but Microsoft is actually giving a ridiculous number of copies away for no charge at all. During Microsoft’s “New Efficiency” campaign, they toured several states all over the USA giving away copies of Windows 7 Ultimate to all attendees. I can only imagine how many copies they’ve given away during the entire thing so far. Sure, this is not the first time Microsoft has given away Windows, but it’s certainly way more than normal. Microsoft has even given away signed copies of Windows 7. (Though I’m perplexed as to who would actually want Steve Balmer’s autograph, he’s not THAT cool).
Also, does anyone remember “Barrelfish”? It’s an experimental operating system Microsoft has developed that’s gone open source. I guess we can’t say Microsoft hasn’t ever given us anything.
Finally, Microsoft recently announced that the Outlook data file format is going to be opened up as well. This was yet another news item that virtually nobody seen coming. In fact, all of this activity from Microsoft (contributing code to Linux, giving away Windows 7 to a large number of people, open sourcing an experimental OS, and announcing the opening of the Outlook data format) all happened within the same six month period. Spooky!
Anyway, I may be completely wrong about everything, and I don’t believe this assumption as a matter of fact. However, it is something worth thinking about. Microsoft may in fact be experimenting with changing their business model, at least a little bit. They are certainly experimenting with open source, though they could very well be experimenting for all the wrong reasons. At the very least, having all of this open source news surrounding Microsoft in such a small amount of time is a bit strange to say the least, and it leaves me wondering what the purpose of it all is. It could even be just a major coincidence.
What do you think? Post your thoughts in the comments. Is Microsoft planning on making a huge change? Or, are they just evaluating the competition?
Jeremy is an A+ Certified IT Technician that blogs at ITNewsToday.com in his spare time. He has over ten years of industry experience, and studies the IT industry every single day. Jeremy has become an open source enthusiast over time and is studying for his Linux+ certification. He lives in Waterford MI with his wife Krystal and son Alan. 
it would be great if ms embrace the open source model but i think they are gonna stay with the actual model “LICF” (Laughing in customer’s face) you know that model when you spend billion dollars developing for years a crappy operating system and when it’s a total failure (as expected) they come back in a year telling u that they have a brand new magical operating system developed in less than a year !!! and they even anticipated their move (mojavi project ?)
Microsoft has considered opening everything before, exhibits from a certain antitrust case proves that.
They have thought about MS Linux, and opening NT fully. They didn’t see it good idea then and I don’t believe they think so now either for reasons they themselves state here.
http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/8000/PX08175.pdf
they’re too greedy which will probably eventually doom them to a niche market of windoze game player diehards. MS days have come and gone they are just too pricey and they don’t have anything going that open source hasn’t covered like a blanket (except maybe game playing). net result is lousy price/performance which causes more and more to take a peek elsewhere. or at least THINK about taking a peek elsewhere.
and its latest incarnations are so badly dumbed down that one can’t even find the CLI anymore. whereby us over at linux have many easier ways of doing things (such as partition imaging and management). we can back our /home directory in seconds and ALL our data is retained in ONE place. whereby in windoze one would have to be extremely organized to accomplish what is mundane in linux without even an afterthought.
its the little things.. like an app modififying a file that is already open by another app. in linux you simply reload the (already open) file. but in windoze you gotta close and reopen it. that sucks in my humble opinion and it is stuff like that all over the place that makes linux such a pleasure to work under. and what makes getting work done under windoze so frustrating. or how about this: try a full install of windoze7 on a wiped drive. try the same thing with ubuntu. well you’ll be searching for windoze drivers for DAYS (if you can even find them at all). but under ubuntu “drivers” are dealt with by the install process itself… not the user. ubuntu has “brains” windoze doesn’t. anyhow my .02 worth…
Right, I had more problems finding drivers for Linux than Windows any day. Granted that was back in the day and Ubuntu is pretty good at drivers being included. I did actually fresh install Windows 7 with the latest i7 hardware and video card and all. I didn’t HAVE to install any additional drivers, but I did go to the NVIDIA website to quickly (read: no searching required) get the drivers for my video card since I use the NVIDIA control panel.
Also, take into account the fact that more computers will come with Windows 7 pre-installed over Linux and you find that VERY few people actually need to search for drivers.
I think you guys should spend less time complaining/bashing/etc on Windows and Microsoft and spend more time doing something useful for the Linux community.
I agree about the drivers, when I took a look at Windows 7 Ultimate briefly I didn’t have to worry about drivers at all. Then again, I didn’t have to worry about drivers on any of my Linux systems other than Nvidia and the occasional wireless driver either, so I believe the driver situation is getting better for both. Historically, I’ve had to download 20 Windows drivers for every 1 Linux driver, so I can understand the perception.
I think Microsoft’s code was rejected because it was poorly written. Considering that Windows 7 is STILL vulnerable to 80% of viruses, still built on a single-user style OS, still using a registry, and still using a filesystem over 10 years old, can I say I’m not surprised?
Microsoft wants you to think it’s brilliant, that it knows what it is doing. Have you heard about the 5800 or more employees it laid off during the past two years? Or how it’s moving more and more staff to tax-free states and to countries like india where it can pay developers less?
And they want you to pay $320 for their operating system when most of the alternatives cost less for more functionality?
I can make my OS look like Windows 7 and run faster, be more immune to viruses, and cost $0.
It’s because MS is finally feeling the heat from the competition they tried so hard to get rid of (vendor lock-in, buyouts, bribery, blackmail, fake standards, bundling of software) that they are starting to change.
With every “service pack” of an operating system they release, they are costing the economy more and more. Microsoft has proven time and time again they only change when they have to. Or are forced to. Until they go through some heavy leadership changes, I doubt they will embrace opensource. Oh, but they will pretend to.
The reasons are quite simple. This article is the reason. It’s better to have a presence in FOSS news circles than to not be represented at all.
Their worth as an open source company it similar to their worth as a technology company. i.e. zero. Don’t give it the time of day.
I think if you look a bit deeper behind the individual bits here, you’ll see more obvious reasons.
For instance, the “20,000 lines of code” was not some awesome new improvement to the kernel, it was three drivers that improved Linux performance in Hyper-V. They only released this because EVERY OTHER VIRTUALIZATION PRODUCT already has drivers to improve the performance of Linux guest OS’s, and relatively few shops big enough to do virtualization are going to do exclusively Windows virtualization. They only released it open source because it wouldn’t be accepted into the kernel otherwise, and this only after trying to get it in with a non-gpl-compatible license.
LOL. Please do you home work. MS had broken Linux Kernel GPL license. It was either pony up the code or get sued.
Then MS tried to dump support on the open source world. They have had to provide two coders to take care of those 20000 lines of code in the Linux kernel.
Yes Open Source is not dump code and leave it.
I’m well aware of that fact, there’s no more homework I need to do on that. My point is that they broke it on purpose knowing it wouldn’t be accepted.
Embracing Linux is how they have a chance to hold it back. How do you fight a strong “virus” or species? You add to the population more virus but with DNA that you can manage. They leverage their levers so that the friendly virus out-reproduces the other ones. Mono is a work in progress, for example. Novell has been given a lot of money and sales to grow MS protocols/API and displace other Linux where Linux will be adopted over Windows. Numerous vendors have signed patent deals.
Look at the trouble they have been going through to get OOXML standardized and adopted. Look at how much negative PR they have endured for that cause. They need their standards to displace the investments of others. Huge loss for others. Meanwhile, Microsoft comes in to save the customers’ day with the only implementation with interoperable components. By definition (ie, because they are closed source, because in practice all open standards allow for extensions, and because interop-breaking “bugs” are unavoidable), undocumented and broken API secrets and special privileges to MS apps will aways exist for any “open” standard running on an MS platform.
Microsoft will suffer a real setback if SCOTUS does not hand them the software patent monopolies. OTOH, there is __much__ to be gained over “freebie” FOSS if they get to keep their patents. FOSS won’t be freebie any longer. They will have a powerful weapon over FOSS besides the lead and control of the standard + their monopolies.
If you can’t keep customers away from FOSS, they can certainly embrace FOSS (over platforms they control). On Windows, they have the upper hand over all software that runs on top. All the easier to manage winFOSS because FOSS is open. They take ideas and make sure those apps that don’t pay Microsoft for information eventually get the shoddy treatment (API). Of course, all third parties (even from “partners”) run an uphill battle against Microsoft apps on Windows. As a bonus, FOSS devs working on winFOSS use up their time contributing to make Windows interesting and sufficient to customers rather than spend that time improving open platform competitors like Linux.
No one should be surprised Microsoft wanted their customers’ “mixed environments” to have Windows virtualizing Linux instead of the other way around. This combination only happens when Linux has driver code to make it possible to run on top of Windows (as an “app” controllable by Windows).
Microsoft continues to leverage their position in the market to elbow Linux out as much as possible (through implied business-ruining threats to Microsoft hw and sw partners). They dump their platform software as much as is necessary.
The comments ahead of this one covered much ground, including the pdf link.
The rule of thumb with Microsoft, and for good reasons (based on their market position and past and present deeds) is to refuse doing business with them on account of their untrustworthiness. Get in bed with a viper and you take real chances. FOSS devs focusing on open platforms like Linux is sufficient. We don’t need to get distracted with a viper.
… Alright. I got that off my shoulder before going to bed.