Microsoft needs some open-source fairy dust

Microsoft needs some open-source fairy dust

Summary: Novell, Sun, IBM and HP have all managed to appropriate some of the positive kudos generated by the open-source community, leaving Microsoft looking cold and out of touch

SHARE:
TOPICS: Tech Industry
1

I thought I had a pretty good handle on the differences between the open-source community and the traditional proprietary approach to software development. But watching a Microsoft spokesperson defend his company and its whole approach to business in front of a room full of Linux zealots last week helped crystallise the gulf between the two camps -- not just in business strategy but in fundamental philosophy and political bent.

First off, Microsoft deserves some credit for actually attending the panel debate and addressing a pretty tough crowd -- the Redmond gang would be hard pushed to find a less sympathetic audience than the faithful filling the hallowed halls of Linux Expo at London's Olympia.

Deciding on the motivation of the Microsoft man,  national systems engineer Bradley Tipp, for turning up depends on your degree of cynicism. Hopefully, it was out of genuine belief in his company's technology and the chance for some heart-felt evangelising to correct the misguided picture that most Linux converts have of Microsoft. Or, from the other end of the cynicism scale, his motivation was all about damage limitation and pulling back any IT managers in the audience who might be considering defecting to open source.

Theorising about motivation might seem a bit "out there" but actually it's key to the whole difficulty that Microsoft is having with the open-source crowd -- they own the moral high-ground 100 percent. Microsoft, on the other hand, is still operating like an 80s company. Being aggressive and pragmatic got them a long way when everyone else was playing by the same rules but open-source advocates such as Red Hat, Suse, and Samba have moved the goalposts. Marching under the banners of sharing and cooperation, they have chosen not to fight Microsoft at its hard-nosed business game. While they still adhere to capitalist principles -- they might have socialist tendencies but they're not communists -- they are also promoting the idea that there is more to life than cash: there is the love of coding, job satisfaction, and the fulfilment of being part of a community; a society.

 

Topic: Tech Industry

Andrew Donoghue

About Andrew Donoghue

"If I'd written all the truth I knew for the past ten years, about 600 people - including me - would be rotting in prison cells from Rio to Seattle today. Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional journalism."

Hunter S. Thompson

Andrew Donoghue is a freelance technology and business journalist with over ten years on leading titles such as Computing, SC Magazine, BusinessGreen and ZDNet.co.uk.

Specialising in sustainable IT and technology in the developing world, he has reported and volunteered on African aid projects, as well as working with charitable organisations such as the UN Foundation and Computer Aid.

adonoghue.wordpress.com/

www.greenwashIT.co.uk

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

1 comment
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • yes, i can see your point about microsoft lacking the fairy dust, but lets just put it into perspective: sure, linux can be a very big thing one day, but who is going to benefit? lots of small companies. this MIGHT well be good for the economy as a whole, but not good for those who want to 'make it big'.
    and here's microsoft's conundrum: if it makes its software open source, how is it going to make money? put it in another way: if the linux companies want to be very successful, how can they continue in an open source way unless they develop more and more proprietary applications? the most successful ones then become, ultimately *tada* monopolies. why? open source does mean more choices, but more choices does not imply more quality from everyone. only the best ones serve up the best quality, and eventually they get most of the business, thus taking over the field as new 'microsofts'.
    the hard-nose capitalist is thus still very much alive and kicking. and will continue making money for himself and his shareholders.
    anonymous