Sorry, folks, I'm in a really sour mood at the moment and I'm taking it out on you. You see, I've been reading posts on Channel9 from people who seem to have gotten some religion about OSS and are bent on a Jihad against anything and everything Microsoft
does. From my point of view, they just don't get it. Yes, Microsoft plays rough, but then in our capitalist economy, who doesn't? You really want to see how ugly a monopolist can get? Go learn about people a like Carnigie and Rockfeller and about the building
of the Western US. Or about Packer or Studebaker. And why doesn't anybody call Cisco a Monopolist? But no, I guess its just easier to go bash on Microsoft...
What really set me off though today was this consistent line-of-thinking that I see over and over and over again that "Microsoft is bad because they don't support open standards or free software."
Let's count the number of Microsoft employees involved with W3C efforts and compare that to the number of Novel ones, shall me? Where would SOAP, XQUery and many others be without Microsoft's involvement in them? Give credit where credit is due, please.
Oh yeah, and don't I recall Microsoft actually investing in a Open Source tool company called
Here's my bottom line: I like OSS. I like what it can do. Stick to explaining its benefits and you'll earn a lot more creditability with me. Stick to bashing MS just for the sake of bashing MS and all you earn is me tunning you and the movement out.
I think as long as Microsoft at least tries to interoperate with other products and systems that is OK. They are going the right way with Whidbey and WebServices / SOAP etc. Will XAML be open to work on other platforms or is it tied to Avalon/Longhorn
- which looks like it might be a good product (but what about Windows 9x users, with low spec PC's?).
Microsoft must have a good OS else why would so many people use it? It's a pity people don't really know about the alternatives which can be pretty good.
A bit more competition on the OS and Office Suite side can only help, as it would encourage more innovation and better products.
Pity Microsoft don't really advertise the standards work they do, as well as the Gates Foundation.
I never knew they signed an agreement with ActiveState though - has it been renegotiated as the agreement expired in 2002?
Novell and IBM are investing in Open Source heavily (especially IBM with the Linux kernel / Eclipse IDE and Novell with Ximian/SuSE)
You also neglected to mention how Microsoft gives back to the comunity. Be it Bill Gates giving to charity. Or how Microsoft gives computers and operating systems to schools or non-profit organzations. We kind of seem to for some reason glance over these
things when we read the news. That is just my opinion.
What posts are you referring to? I was kind of expecting the Microsoft bashing to be worse than it is. Thing is, we are all going to criticize but that is not bash MS just expressing our opinions. We use Microsoft products from dawn till dusk so people are
bound to have opinions that would suit Microsoft's tools to their personal tastes.
Elsewhere there is a lot of Microsoft bashing and open source praising going on.. but that is beyond the control of anyone. Thing is, people want Microsoft to be more open and work to standardize more. Because Microsoft holds so much sway over the entire software
world it is important that they agree on standards and use them. It would also be beneficial for everyone if Microsoft starts releasing source so people try and encourage that.
Cisco does not hold a big enough market percentage to be compared to Microsoft, also Cisco is in a completely different industry.. So I don't see the comparison, you would be better off comparing apply and Microsoft.
Thats what the Gates Foundation is:
I wonder what the $50bn they have saved up is going to be used for. Probably litigations and so on. I think it also means Microsoft can run for a year if they don;t sell anything or make any money (not likely)
The spirit stirs in my soul, too.
Preach on, brother Kent!
>I've been reading posts on Channel9 from people who seem to have >gotten some religion about OSS and are bent on a Jihad against anything >and everything Microsoft does.
Its actually been a lot less extreme than i was expecting. This is my first post BTW, the formatting might be a little odd.
> And why doesn't anybody call Cisco a Monopolist?
Because Cisco doesn't touch the lives of many people in ways they actually notice. Most people don't have a clue about network infrastructure, and this includes a lot of OpenSource people. Cisco VRRP is a good example of how screwed up they can be.
(left hand sidebar http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#35)
>Let's count the number of Microsoft employees involved with W3C efforts >and compare that to the number of Novel ones, shall me?
Two points, firstly MS playing nicely with others is a new, very welcome side of the beast. Look at Office file formats, IE and domain authentication for more the more traditional approaches.
Secondly using Novell as an example is a little harsh, at least pick a company thats still relevant
>Where would SOAP, XQuery and many others be without Microsoft's >involvement in them? Give credit where credit is due, please.
They'd be IBM's babies. Which wouldn't be much of a better thing IMHO. Microsoft may have put a lot of effort into these but they ain't the only company involved, i like to think that someone like IBM or Sun would have head hunted Don Box if MS had let him
Lets not confuse good business sense with altruism. MSDE has always been about making upgrade paths to SQL Server easy, the first ones always free I'm not saying its a bad idea just that its not done out of some kindness.
>Oh yeah, and don't I recall Microsoft actually investing in a Open Source >tool company called ActiveState?
And Redhat. Although those shares were sold a while ago.
You have to admit that MS is becoming a lot more open and community facing than its ever been before. Unfortunatly way too many FOSS people stopped dealing with MS with Windows 95/98 and haven't kept up with the improvements in both techincal and openness.
Its just a shame they are the most visible ones.
Disclamer: I admin a network of Windows and Linux boxes, I've been doing Linux for the last six years and i only came back to using MS when Windows 2000 came out.
Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.