Creative Commons License

Blog powered by Typepad

« Microsoft and MySQL: A Thought Experiment | Main | Conformance and Certification: The ODF Standard and Microsoft's Office Open XML Specification »

17 January 2007


Dalibor Topic

I find the recent flurry of 'how to save Microsoft by making it embrace Free Software' articles/blogs/rants quite funny.

Microsoft, selling works of countless open source developers in their products, and at the same time threatening them with patent lawsuits, to work together with open source developers on equal footing?

Yeah, right, when pigs fly.


I have been working on/with SPS for a couple of releases now. in my mind, large portions of it already are open-source. This means it is either:
- Javascript
- ASP.NET code
- CAML code (or other XML variants)
I assume Izcava (sic) is already looking at all this stuff!

Pop Catalin

This is so crazzy that .... it just might work !!!

John Cardinal

I was following along with your points right up until you said this about visual studio:
Visual Studio is just an IDE. The real technology value in Visual Studio is the core language technology (the compilers and CLR i.e. garbage collection, the JIT, etc.), not the configurable menu options. How many coloured text editors does the world really need?

Quite frankly this point is really bringing down your overall thought experiment. As a long term user of Visual Studio I've tried other IDE's inclusing eclipse and they are laughable by comparison. VS's real value is in the design of the IDE itself. Quite simply there is no IDE made by anyone that I'm aware of or tried that hold's a candle to the IDE itself for sheer productivity. The editor is just an editor but VS is far more than the editor. You are making comparisons of editors and failing to compare the 90% of other features that make it such a good product. I'm not alone in thinking this and your comments on it really give me the impression you either haven't worked with it for any amount of time or haven't really tried the alternatives out there for comparison.

I'm not disagreeing with your premise, but this point is so far off the mark I had to respond.

Vadim Sershev

Seems MONO is a great case, and X11 is much more honest way to deal with IT industry than GPL is (my special respect to Miguel de Icaza). And there is a lot of sense in giving dev tools for free – this seems to be helpful in ensuring Microsoft (and any other big software player) future revenues.

But I can not agree with the comment that “IBM did it ”. Agree, there is little common in MS and IBM businesses. MS model is “horizontal” – they mostly develop software and create a lot of room for other independent developers (ok, an issue for somebody :), distributors, resellers, OEMs, integrators, etc. IBM’s business is much more “vertical” – they intend to be “all for all” with relatively little need in the rest of IT ecosystem. You can easily support OSS if you sell your transaction-per-dollar solution including both hardware and software at a price substantially higher than, say, a team of Dell and MS (I mean TPCC, of course). And do this with some help of OSS marketing campaign, by the way…

You may recommend others to work almost for free and even contribute significantly into open source yourself until you control everything from hardware (including even core microprocessor architecture) till consulting on how to implement all this open stuff at real enterprise (through PwC). And a very little part of IBM’s patent portfolio is available for OSS… And GPL can be considered as a way to prevent market from next Microsoft appearance rather than as an instrument to support developers…

Microsoft can not do anything of this. I do not wonna say MS is better. It is simply different.

And currently, seems, Novll or Novell+MS may do more for dev community. But, unfortunately, there is little hope they will be really recognized for this.


Sucks that no one in MS will listen. But I think maybe opensourcing VS Express is an even more viable idea.

The comments to this entry are closed.