Open Source = John Conner
Microsoft = SkyNet

...you do the math.

All good posts everyone!

There's no such thing as Open Source in Microsoft's vocabulary. The only focus they have is to kill any and all competitors. Clearly those of you responding favorably to Microsoft have failed to learn from history.

I think Microsoft sees the need for (and the competitive danger in) open source.

Think of the Vista debacle -- 6 billion dollars, project scrapped halfway through, replaced with sugar-coated, rebadged NT loaded with DRM and other bloat to make the RIAA happy (and the Windows 7 debacle, or how-to-charge-billions-for-a-Vista-Service-pack-that-should-have-been-free-and-try-and-make-up-for-losses).

Now compare this to, say, Ubuntu, OpenSuse, RedHat, or other top-brand version of Linux. Ubuntu manages to release new versions of its OS every 6 months (and OpenSuse, about every year). This would cost Microsoft 6-12 billion $ each and every year (which even Microsoft could not fund and remain alive). So how is this possible, and how in the world is Microsoft to compete with such a business model?

The "trick" is to release your code as an open-source "development" version to all the world under the GPL, then ask for volunteers from some of these recipients to help develop the code, debug the code, and so on. Imagine you are a software developer and you have loaded a completely-free "gift" OS on your machine, yet you see a couple of adjustments required to make it a bit more efficient, or to support certain hardware. You have the source code, so you modify it and resubmit it under the GPL. Multiply this by thousands or millions of user-developers and, Hey presto - a new OS every 6-12 months!

But how do you make money off of this business model? Well, since your development costs are so low, you can make modest profits off of support contracts and commercial sales of "commercial-version, stable" releases to businesses and governments. And the prices can be low, so low that no closed-source, proprietary company can compete with them.

So the sophistication of open-source code development proceeds at possibly almost an exponential rate (as more users and developers participate in ALL versions of Linux development), while development costs remain almost free compared to close-source models...so how can Microsoft (or Apple) compete with this? They can try to crush or discredit open-source (they have tried, but this is really hard to do, as open-source by its nature is a moving target), or they can somehow try to adopt this development model. However, I fear that the massive corporate inertia of Microsoft is too great to steer this "titanic" company safely clear of all of the massive open-source icebergs ahead (so readers may want to try out a free download of Ubuntu, OpenSuse or other Linux just to be on the safe side).

Suppose he started to annoy certain people within MS.
There is no way and no need for MS to go open source. It does not fit to how their money is made.
But they should open up on interop. and standards. Stop the FUD, and improve their products.
(or drop dead, to please me)

I still think the problem is the business model.

What is an open source business model that would work for microsoft?

Release the code to windows and the first thing that will happen is wga and drm get taken out and free windows for everybody? I fail to see how that will keep microsoft in business. And then who would support it? forums? and email lists? And what would stop a company like Dell from just making Dell Windows - it's almost exactly the same as microsoft windows but we changed a couple things we didn't like and fragmented the market. Sounds alot like linux to me.

Or look at things like paint.net, this is a classic story, it's open source till the author gets tired of people taking all his work, giving him no credit, selling their derivates, and not sharing their improvements.... So now it's just free, but not open source.

Microsoft’s problem is that it still doesn’t take Open Source seriously enough. Ramji was never high enough in the hierarchy to impact the corporate culture in any way. What Microsoft needs is a Vice-President of Open Source.

By the time they realize this, it’ll be too late.

There's a lot of open sauce in your article... ;-)

Obviously Ramji was not the right man for the job, which is easily filled should you be such a being ..... for as you have rightly shared, Microsoft have everything going for them and everything anyone would need for the task.

What is missing from the tale, Stewart, is an email address for those who would be a right person for the job, to apply with their vision. However that would really be an application for Steve Ballmer's position, wouldn't it, for that is where the core problem resides?