PDA

View Full Version : FOSS not so open?



KingBahamut
November 8th, 2005, 04:14 PM
At the Open Source Business Conference last week, Microsoft's Shared Source mouthpiece Jason Matusow argued the point that open source isn't really open. He said you can't just go changing code on supported Linux offerings without paying extra to companies like Red Hat or Novell. So as Linux is commercialized, it becomes less open. While Matusow made good points during his presentation, many in the open source community are skeptical of the idea at best.

External links
http://searchdatacenter.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid80_gci1141244,00.html

From the Article.....

Red Hat issues patch updates for its premium offering, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and keeps customers' IT infrastructure secure.

"But if a customer modifies the source code, [Red Hat] can't help you [without charging you extra]. They have to lock things down to provide value," Matusow said. "As open source becomes commercialized, it becomes less open."

Absolute rubbish to call Redhat not true open source just because they wont support you if you change it, and ask for more money. Thats why its open. You change it, you support it.

Mr. Electric Wizard
November 8th, 2005, 04:24 PM
That's just retarded for him to say this (the microsoft guy).

So I can guess its not that open either when you break one of your corporate servers, and have to call in a Linux Consultant to fix it (because you can't), and pay them.

That's just crazy talk!

nocturn
November 8th, 2005, 04:26 PM
LOL, his reasoning is so funny. It just shows he does not get it.

You change code (say apache), submit patches to the project, if they get accepted, they find their way back via official channels.

What does he expect? That RedHat/Ubuntu/SuSE support every modification any user makes to source code?

23meg
November 8th, 2005, 04:30 PM
The usual MS fact manipulation. How in the world can you apply an update that's meant for a standard package to one that's been altered? Of course they need extra work to look into what's been altered, and patch it accordingly.

Mr. Electric Wizard
November 8th, 2005, 04:30 PM
Well you can see why he doesn't get it.
Just look at who he works for. They probably make him were one of those tin foil hat thingies...;)

23meg
November 8th, 2005, 04:32 PM
But look what he's saying:


Regardless of which camp you fall under, Matusow said competition between Microsoft and Linux is good for IT.

"Product competition increases choice, improves price through competition," he said, citing competition between Linux flavors from Red Hat, Mandrake and Novell. "Product competition is healthy."

Microsoft finally seems to be getting it. Or maybe just pretending.

Mr. Electric Wizard
November 8th, 2005, 04:34 PM
Microsoft finally seems to be getting it. Or maybe just pretending.

Until, you decide to make the switch. Then they send the dogs out after you, LOL.

GeneralZod
November 8th, 2005, 04:35 PM
LOL, his reasoning is so funny. It just shows he does not get it.

There's a saying: "Never attribute to malice that which could be explained by incompetence".

However, when it comes to Microsoft PR, I always feel justified in turning this on its head: Microsoft study their enemies well, and whenever you see a PR statement that appears to "misunderstand" an aspect of F/OSS and so cast it in a bad light, be sure that the "misunderstanding" is both intentional and calculated for that precise effect :)

KingBahamut
November 8th, 2005, 04:40 PM
There's a saying: "Never attribute to malice that which could be explained by incompetence".

However, when it comes to Microsoft PR, I always feel justified in turning this on its head: Microsoft study their enemies well, and whenever you see a PR statement that appears to "misunderstand" an aspect of F/OSS and so cast it in a bad light, be sure that the "misunderstanding" is both intentional and calculated for that precise effect :)

Unless of course your intent is to spread unintelligible FUD. Why would Robbins have been hired by the company if they did understand how its supposed to work, and ultimately how to defeat it?

lerrup
November 8th, 2005, 04:49 PM
He understands exactly what he is doing; read more here (http://blogs.msdn.com/jasonmatusow/).

Stormy Eyes
November 8th, 2005, 05:03 PM
Why exactly does Microsoft allow their employees to smoke crack on the job?

KingBahamut
November 8th, 2005, 05:15 PM
He understands exactly what he is doing; read more here (http://blogs.msdn.com/jasonmatusow/).
Well lerup from his blog

He suggests that looking at why customers like Windows is a better way for Linux devs to be successful at producing software that customers want. So in other words - Linux should embrace and extend what Windows does. Hmmm...I'm pretty sure that the whole "embrace and extend" thing has been used as a pejorative in the past.

.......................

It is not good enough for Linux to simply emulate Windows, it is going to have to extend beyond and that is why innovation is the whole ball of wax. Windows Vista is not just a rehash of Windows - it is value-driven and reaches beyond anything we have done before. Otherwise - why buy it vs. running the high-quality OS already available? So Linux is not going to have to match Windows XP (which is going to take a long time and a lot of hard work to do), it is going to have to match the pace and quality of innovation coming out of our dev teams. This is not just about user interfaces, it is about extensibility, security, manageability, quality, performance, etc. etc. etc. Each having it own elements of compulsory requirements and innovation value-add.

So next time you feel like pointing an accusatory finger at Microsoft and repeating the nasty "embrace and extend" - think about the engineering, marketing, sales, implementation, and support challenges being faced by the Linux vendors. That commercial community is completely focused on "embrace and extend" today.

Linux should not embrace and extend. Secondly his statement about Vista being a value driven release - value driven by what? Services that cost money to be paid to Microsoft directly in an attempt to create a burgeoning SaaS situation? Thats eliminating competition creating an monopolistic endeavour. Lets just knock Symantec, McAfee and the other AV/AS groups. From what I understand those products wont run effeciently in Vista , as MS leans towards it own homebrewed alternative.

As far as innovation, I clearly see that the OSS Community, Linux in specific, has driven more innovation that MS has. Microsoft as a whole has not embraced the versatility or the creativity that comes from the OSS community on any varitey of level. It may seem trite to say it , but using something as simplistic as say the Alexandria Development, is there a Microsoft driven and developed equivilent? Leaning on this idea creates a situation that says , MS Doesnt innovate unless it makes money. We innovate because of humanistic endeavour and desire.

The OpenDocument format fight is itself a sign that MS has no intention of embracing innovation or ability.

GeneralZod
November 8th, 2005, 05:49 PM
Unless of course your intent is to spread unintelligible FUD.

Whose intent? You can't mean mine, surely...?

Edit: Apparently not - thanks, KB :)



Why would Robbins have been hired by the company if they did understand how its supposed to work, and ultimately how to defeat it?


Microsoft have a Linux/ OSS lab headed by their self-proclaimed "Linux Guru", Bill Hilf. The Halloween Documents, created in 1998 - seven years ago - by a Microsoft employee, contain a wealth of insights into F/OSS, including some that ESR says he wishes they had not stumbled upon as they are dangerously near the mark. They have also publicly declared Linux as Enemy #1. I simply can't imagine for a second that they still truly don't understand F/OSS, and on the basis of this I can't help but view every public "misunderstanding" they display with suspicion.

As to why they hired drobbins, I know no more than you, but it is certainly the case that he is an extremely talented man both in terms of technology and leadership (you have to be in order to form a popular distro that is such a departure from all the others), and thus a very desirable employee.

newbie2
November 9th, 2005, 04:36 AM
The usual MS fact manipulation.
InformationWeek: Traditional media outlets have to deal with legal issues from time to time. Has Slashdot had to confront that?

Bates: There have been a number of different issues. One, several years back now, was actually a confrontation with Microsoft, because they embraced and extended an open standard called Kerberos, which is part of encryption. And we had posted a story about it. Someone had posted the code in one of the comments on the story. And Microsoft came and said, "We want that taken down. That's our intellectual property." Our response was no, it's not, it's an open standard, so it's not yours, we're not going to take it down. And in that case, we didn't take it down. And they, after sending over their initial salvo, then backed off because they realized they were in the wrong.
http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=XOJLIJNQ5UAVYQSNDBOCK H0CJUMEKJVN?articleID=173600265
:p :p

vayu
November 9th, 2005, 08:50 AM
At the Open Source Business Conference last week, Microsoft's Shared Source mouthpiece Jason Matusow argued the point that open source isn't really open. He said you can't just go changing code on supported Linux offerings without paying extra to companies like Red Hat or Novell. So as Linux is commercialized, it becomes less open.

Microsoft offers free support to the source code changes people make to their products. :wink: