HackFUD

The above diagram, originally made available to Mary Jo Foley on her blog , appears to be what Microsoft has in mind as a strategy to overcome its personal monster, otherwise known as Linux.

Microsoft wants to have all the Free and Open Source Software goodness for itself, wrapped up in its Closed Source, Proprietary “candy”, and in so doing, hopes to starve GNU/Linux of the oxygen of FOSS.

It’s mistaken if it believes that strategy will succeed in usurping Linux as the base from which FOSS grows, and the reason is this : GNU/Linux’s candy - the flavour of Freedom, tastes sweeter than Microsoft’s proprietary and expensive “Stack”. It’s a combination of philosophy, perception, and server back-end suitability in which GNU/Linux will win all the way.

This strategy is typical Microsoft “embrace, extend, extinguish”. It’s an old, worn-out strategy which people are by now wise to (finally, after decades of being taken in by this), and it’s a sad, desperate move by an old dinosaur which is now slowly realising that its reign and power over the IT industry is coming to an end - slowly, but surely.

I’d write a much longer and more detailed article, but frankly, I’m not that concerned.

(Oh and sorry for not having more articles since the last one - I’ve been extremely busy for the last month or so.)

And it’s back to business for me, after my trials and tribulations getting this site performing the way I want it to. Almost…

This time, here’s Bill Hilf, Microsoft’s…well, let’s let InformationWeek introduce him…

Microsoft’s leading light on open source issues. Since coming to Microsoft from IBM in 2003, Hilf has been inextricably involved with Microsoft’s strategy for dealing with Linux. He’s recently been appointed general manager of Windows Server marketing and platform strategy, which means he’s taking on an expanded role, but open source is still one of his core issues.

One of his core issues. Indeed. InformationWeek asks him:

InformationWeek: Are there any specific areas where you would see Microsoft placing things in an open source development environment as a way to further its own products or to better interoperate with things?

He replies with :

Hilf: When people buy commercial software, really what they’re buying is a guarantee. You’re buying a guarantee that what you have will perform, and has been tested and there’s someone you can call up, and if things go really bad someone’s liable if something doesn’t work. You’re buying this ecosystem of accountability. One of the challenges of open source and really the challenge with the open source business model is: it’s hard to replicate that ecosystem of accountability and that guarantee.

What he seems to be implying here is that if you use FOSS products, there’s no one to phone up and complain to if something with that product goes wrong. There’s no accountability. You can’t hold someone liable for something going wrong. What he’s also saying is that buying commercial (read : proprietary) software, then all these negatives Go Away. Not only that, but with the purchase of the commercial software, you’re getting a “guarantee that what you have will perform, and has been tested”, that you can hold the publishers of that software liable if something doesn’t work.

Oh, really? Yeah. Right.

Let’s deal with the issue of a piece of commercial software having a guarantee it’s going to work/perform, first. Read the rest of this entry »